It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hornet corrosion "took us by surprise" says Admiral

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Is there a source of iron dust near where these aircraft were built.

Steel and aluminum don't mix as you get Galvanic corrosion when you add salt.
en.wikipedia.org...
I have seen this first hand on ships.




posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Sandcastler

Not to anyone but the Naval leadership.


It's an excuse they came up with too cover their asses. That is all. Show me a study or document that shows they skipped normal corrosion control maintenance cause they planned to retire them at 6k hours and thought they would not need to be inspected.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




Deep in the internal structure. You don't get to that portion of the airframe except on certain inspections, and some portions are only accessible on a depot level inspection.


one word... magnesium.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I read elsewhere in the last couple of days that the discussion went into the details of how the a/c was allowed to be produced with reduced anti-corrosion materials and coatings. Why has that point not surfaced in this thread? Seems like that would have allowed some finger point rather than just our being given shoulder shrugs and nothing else from TPTB.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   
The navy should invest in some Corrosion X ... I think it used to be made by Boeing ? Anyway some of the 50 year old aircraft I used to fly would get corrosion inside the horizontal stab and vertical stab. Anyplace where the skin is fasten onto the support structures are very likely for corrosion to start especially in the salt water environment. Even dissimilar metal joints are corrosion points given the right environment.
The Corrosion X stopped that crap dead in it's tracks. We did do some re-skins on some aircraft and it was very evident where the corrosion had been killed .. I cannot believe the NAVY DOES NOT USE A CORROSION BLOCKER BESIDE ZINC CROMATE TO BEGIN WITH.. Or maybe they do and I am just unaware of their procedures ?

Corrosion X is applied by using a fine mist wan.. Pull a wing tip off and shoot the mist into the wing or through inspection panels. Same with the fuselage and gear well.. We would spray our aircraft down once a year during annual inspection but I would do it every 4 to six months if the bird were floating on a carrier.. Hell of a lot cheaper than a rebuild and refurbish..



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

Most of the legacy aircraft wouldn't have gone over 6,000 hours, if the F-35 program hadn't hit the delays it did, or if they had been able to get more Rhinos than they did.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

SFL, Corrosion X, CPC types 1, 2, and 3 for avionics, hinges, and non-moving parts. 83282 wipe down for shiny stuff once every 45 days would do wonders for these birds.



posted on Jun, 12 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman
Seems like that would be an improvement .



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   
Spray that ish down with WD-40 and arm them for attack.

Use them or loose them.
edit on 13-6-2015 by FlyingFox because: freedom



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If this is how they treat the super bugs imagine what is in store for the F-35 in the future maintenance wise. Seeing how its easier to work on I can see the inspections getting even more lax. Or maybe there isn't enough manpower to do the jobs required. I thought I remember reading not to long ago that understaffed aircraft maintainers are a bit of a problem.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

That might work on ones 20 year old Honda but not on a Boeing F/A-18 SuperHornet.



posted on Jun, 13 2015 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: StratosFear

Right now for the Navy money for maintenance work is a major issue. That's one reason it's going to take so long to get the aircraft repaired.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Granted I have been away from Naval Aviation Maintenance for...a few years, however, I know on the airframes I worked on, we had 7, 14, 28, and 56 day inspections in addition to phase inspections. 7 days, were wiping down the avionics racks and looking for corrosion, 14 days were washes and external lubrication of various components (and on helicopters, that's a LOT). 28/56 days were removing fairings and antennas and checking structural supports. As for what has happened with Naval Aviation....well, they seem to be more concerned about peoples feelings and how well they do on the fitness tests anymore.

The end of my career was with an ANG F-16 block 30 unit....and we always seem to have a jet or two that was sitting in the hanger minus a wing waiting for finger brace or wing box replacement that we would do without getting Depot involved.



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Zaphod58




Deep in the internal structure. You don't get to that portion of the airframe except on certain inspections, and some portions are only accessible on a depot level inspection.


one word... magnesium.

What is that metal ingot on outboard motors that slows the galvanization? Would it work in the Hornets?



posted on Jun, 18 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Its sounds like the parts in question are MMC's, multiple metal composites, they were all the rage in the early ninties, until time showed they were not all that.
A major bicycle mfg. jumped into mmc's, tubes supplied by an aerospace mfg. after about six months on the market they started have frame failures, induced by corrosion in the bottom bracket(thats where the cranks are mounted)
They ultimately had a failure rate of nearly 80%, that is unthinkable for a consumer product. MMC's have never come back to the industry.
As far as dissimilar metals and galvanic corrosion, Ti or SS fasteners in an Al part are a recipe for corrosion unless peridically disassembled and re anti siezed.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join