Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > What plastic did the the nation's premiere fighter aircraft

Reply
Thread Tools

What plastic did the the nation's premiere fighter aircraft

 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2011
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
>> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that resist
>> corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

>
>Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy
>18-36 months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.



The Alfasud and Lancias represented a low point in manufacturing
quality of steel bodies. It was the unique combination of modern
thin, high strength steels and the historic inability of Italian car
manufacturers to prevent or delay rusting that led to those problems.

It was a wake-up call for European manufacturers. Even Volkswagen's
standards had slipped, and they led the way in inproving corrosion
resistance by a combination of better design (avoiding rust traps),
improved priming and painting and, especially, wax injection of
cavities. Most of the severe rust problems were caused by internal
rusting within cavities bursting through the paintwork, and the wax
put a stop to this.

Despite the fact that British roads have more de-icing salts applied
to them in winter than ever before, rust problems are a thing of the
past. There was some backsliding caused by the change from
solvent-based to water-based paints, which brought added problems
(especially to Mercedes-Benz), but almost every manufacturer selling
cars in the UK now offers a warranty against rusting. It just isn't a
problem any more.

Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.

I don't know about Lancia because the range was withdrawn from the UK
market after the rust problems of the 70s/80s and never came back.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2011
On 02/03/2011 08:28, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 27/02/2011 19:00, Bruce wrote:
>>> RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
>>>> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
>>>> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
>>>>
>>>> The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
>>>> corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
>>>> of September, says:
>>>>
>>>> "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
>>>> in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
>>>> introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
>>>> total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
>>>> the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
>>>> identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
>>>> corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."
>>>
>>>
>>> That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.

>>
>> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
>> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that resist
>> corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

>
> Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy 18-36
> months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.
>
>


Alfa Suds where the worst by far and IIRC had to recall them here in the
UK as most where failing their first MOT (roadworthiness test done on
cars from the third anniversary of registration). Since then they have
improved enormously.

Mike
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
DanP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-02-2011
On Mar 2, 12:18*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
> corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.


I have just scrapped my 10 year old Alfa 156. Rust, among other things
was on the MOT failure report.
My financial loss does not upset me as much as the car being taken off
the road.

DanP
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-03-2011
On 3/2/2011 2:56 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 19:00:53 -0800, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-03-01 16:23:38 -0800, Eric Stevens<(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:06:30 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Rich"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> On Feb 27, 2:00 pm, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> RichA<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
>>>>>> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
>>>>>> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
>>>>>
>>>> SNIP
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the trouble with metal. It corrodes.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
>>>>> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".
>>>>
>>>> Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal. F-4s, metal decades of
>>>> use, F-16s, F-14s, F-15s, F-18s, C5s, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> All of these aircraft have ongoing corrosion problems.

>>
>> Perhaps you should have phrased that, "All aircraft have ongoing
>> corrosion problems."
>> Here is a little FAA brochure;
>> < http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/cmd/visitors/data/AAR-430/aainsp.pdf>
>>
>> They get suspicious when this type of thing happens;
>> < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDNCac2N1o&feature=related>

>
> I suspect someone should have become suspicious before this happened.
>
> Regards,
>


Some could have been paid not to be.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2011
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 2:00*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
>> >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
>> >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

>>
>> >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
>> >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
>> >of September, says:

>>
>> >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
>> >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
>> >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
>> >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
>> >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
>> >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
>> >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."

>>
>> That's the trouble with metal. *It corrodes. *
>>
>> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
>> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

>
>Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal.


That metal corroded, too.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) | The new GOP ideal

 
Reply With Quote
 
ScotchBright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-22-2011
On 19 Mar 2011 21:09:38 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>On Feb 27, 2:00*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
>>> >coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
>>> >a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
>>>
>>> >The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's
>>> >corrosion evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end
>>> >of September, says:
>>>
>>> >"Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
>>> >in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first
>>> >introduced the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a
>>> >total of 534 instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in
>>> >the substructure was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage
>>> >identified to date, the government is paying $228 million to make F-22
>>> >corrosion-related repairs and retrofits through 2016."
>>>
>>> That's the trouble with metal. *It corrodes. *
>>>
>>> It would have been far better to make the aircraft out of composite
>>> materials, otherwise known as "plastic".

>>
>>Really? B-52's flew for 50 years. Metal.

>
>That metal corroded, too.


Actually the whole program is corroded.

The F-22 was originally supposed to cost between 90 and 180
million depending on specs.
The Pentagon and Lockheed (now Lockheed-Martin) agreed on a
package for 120 million per plane, and then Lockheed went behind their
backs and got the government to lower the specifications but leave the
price as was.
The Pentagon got wise and decided to cancel further orders,
saying they'd just buy the F-35 (the "low cost" strike fighter that
was supposed to be an adjunct to the F-22) and be done with the F-22
boondoggle.
Lockheed responded by saying that so much of what went into
the F-35 was just scaled down from the F-22, and they needed to
recover their research and development dollars, so they couldn't sell
the F-35 at the originally agreed price of 60-some million per plane,
and instead would have to charge the Pentagon 113 million per plane.
The latest sale to Canada, with maintenance costs factored
into the per plane equation will have Canadians paying more than 200
million per plane for a plane that is about half as capable as the
F-22, which was over priced at 120 million.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr Cheerless
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-25-2011
On 01/03/2011 17:33, RichA wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:14 pm, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> On 2011-03-01 06:06:30 -0800, "R. Mark Clayton"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>
>> <Le Snip>
>>
>>
>>
>>> BTW do the F22 and F35 come with a camera built in?

>>
>> Several.
>> A gun camera, and several methods of recording other data images as
>> well as missile targeting events.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck

>
> And the missles have cameras in their noses, some of them.


Yes, but despite them having metal bodies, the IQ is just crap.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2011
RichA wrote:
>
> "Stealt materials."


<edited for brevity>

> Costly corrosion problems on the F-22 caused by stealth materials and
> coatings have been addressed on the F-35, but risks remain, concludes
> a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
>
> The GAO's presentation to Congress on its review of the DoD's corrosion
> evaluation report on the F-22 and F-35, completed at the end of September,
> says:
>
> "Corrosion of the aluminum skin panels on the F-22 was first observed
> in spring 2005, less than 6 months after the Air Force first introduced
> the aircraft to a severe environment. By October 2007, a total of 534
> instances of corrosion were documented, and corrosion in the substructure
> was becoming prevalent. For corrosion damage identified to date, the
> government is paying $228 million to make F-22 corrosion-related
> repairs and retrofits through 2016."



Your subject title is just as incoherent, as its author is.

Furthermore, "the nation's premiere fighter aircraft" isn't a product
of >your< crummy country. The issues with Canada's military aircraft
don't involve plastic...instead, the Canucks' "warbirds" are often
grounded, because of engine faults (i.e., their rubber bands break).

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2011
PeterN wrote:
>
> > On 3/1/2011 9:06 AM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:


<edited for brevity>

> > Various materials have been used to make aeroplanes: -
> >
> > Wood - e.g. De Haviland Mosquito

>
> Wood the Spruce goose and probably millions of flying planes
> made mostly of balsa wood.


<edited>

Few of the balsa/tissue model airplanes that I ever built,
were capable of successful flight. Damned disappointing,
considering all the time and effort I'd put into them.

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-31-2011
Bruce wrote:
>
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> On 2011-03-02 00:10:33 -0800, Mike <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> >> Maybe the manufacturer should speak to the european automotive
> >> manufacturers who by and large have managed to make cars that
> >> resist corrosion provided they are maintained properly.

> >
> > Apparently you are not familiar with the Alfa Sud (life expectancy
> > 18-36 months) and various 1970's & 1980's Lancias.

>
> The Alfasud and Lancias represented a low point in manufacturing
> quality of steel bodies. It was the unique combination of modern
> thin, high strength steels and the historic inability of Italian car
> manufacturers to prevent or delay rusting that led to those problems.


"Bruce" is an automobile authority, too! If only those aforementioned
companies had known of his expertise, they could've employed him as a
consultant...and hence, avoided such debacles.

> It was a wake-up call for European manufacturers. Even Volkswagen's
> standards had slipped, and they led the way in inproving corrosion
> resistance by a combination of better design (avoiding rust traps),
> improved priming and painting and, especially, wax injection of
> cavities. Most of the severe rust problems were caused by internal
> rusting within cavities bursting through the paintwork, and the wax
> put a stop to this.


That's truly fascinating, old man. Obviously, Volkswagen hired you and
heeded your sage advice.

> Despite the fact that British roads have more de-icing salts applied
> to them in winter than ever before, rust problems are a thing of the
> past. There was some backsliding caused by the change from
> solvent-based to water-based paints, which brought added problems
> (especially to Mercedes-Benz), but almost every manufacturer selling
> cars in the UK now offers a warranty against rusting. It just isn't
> a problem any more.


Yes, it's not "a problem anymore," for British-built cars. They simply
fall apart >mechanically<, before having a chance to rust away.

> Ironically, among the brands whose bodywork is most resistant to
> corrosion is ... Alfa Romeo.


Wow!

> I don't know about Lancia because the range was withdrawn from
> the UK market after the rust problems of the 70s/80s and never
> came back.


It was their own fault, "Bruce" -- they should've listened to
you, back in the dark ages.

Luckily, Olympus hasn't repeated that mistake, in these more
enlightened times ("Bruce" speaks fluent Japanese and most
camera makers seek his wise counsel).

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What plastic is the Nikon Coolpix camera body made up of (why did glue melt it?) Jeanette Guire Digital Photography 44 10-16-2007 02:11 PM
DVD Verdict reviews: PIT FIGHTER, FREAKY FRIDAY (1976), and more! DVD Verdict DVD Video 0 07-07-2005 08:11 AM
[ot] New Stealth Fighter Unveiled JaR MCSE 12 01-27-2005 06:39 PM
Fighter Planes (yeah more of them) J.D. Parker Digital Photography 15 10-03-2003 07:53 AM
Fighter planes pictures Jankins Digital Photography 31 09-21-2003 05:31 AM



Advertisments