F-35A completes third life cycle test

The F-35A airframe designated AJ-1 is being returned to the US from the BAE facility in Brough, England after undergoing static fatigue testing. The aircraft was placed in a 350 ton test rig, and fitted with 20 miles of wiring, 2,500 strain gauges and 160 loading actuators. The aircraft is placed under loads similar to what it would encounter in flight while on the rig.

The airframe is designed to withstand 8,000 hours of flight time, but fatigue testing has shown that it will go up to 16,000 hours with no problems. AJ-1 is being returned for a detailed inspection after "flying" for 24,000 hours. That will give a much better idea of which parts will fail first, and if the airframe can withstand more than twice its designed life cycle. Both the B and C have completed second life testing and are well into third life.

www.aerotechnews.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

That is actually rather impressive..

a reply to: Zaphod58

Good news. Is it common for airframes to last double their design limit?

a reply to: face23785

Usually they can extend them to close to double, but they don't reach that far, and many times they need a major SLEP to reach that. They're extending the F-15s to 13,000. I think the farthest I've heard them going for is 15,000 hours on an 8,000 hour designed life cycle.

Was weather/corrosion included in this simulation/wear test? I guess salty conditions won´t be a problem as it´s not the navy airframe, or am I wrong?

a reply to: verschickter

They took everything into account. The A models won't see as much salt corrosion as the B and C will, but that's tested for so they have an idea of what is going to corrode, what isn't, and what starts to go first. The B and C are both there as well and are into their third cycle testing.

Very good thread and flag for you. Aeronautical engineers usually go at least 50% over emergency loads to attempt to reduce the chance of failure in aircraft. One of the few failures occurred in a DC-10 tanker on a return trip from the Paris air show. The pilot (a reserve major) instructed the flight engineer to add 10K of fuel above the safe operating load but below the emergency takeoff weight. Upon landing in GA it was discovered the airframe was bent due to over load and the landing gear and struts were bent. Damage exceeded a million dollars and the pilot's career was over. The flight engineer was reprimanded but not punished as the pilot is recorded as giving a direct order to load the fuel. My best,