F-35 ejection seat fix delayed till 2018

>>28499228
Cool thread Pierre.

File: nothing.jpg (9KB, 220x180px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 220x180px

>>28499228

File: 1451355483215.png (14KB, 364x322px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 364x322px

>>28499228
LOCKMART SHILLS ON SUICIDE WATCH

>>28499228
So should we just keep our fleet till 2065? It would cost more but would it be better?

>>28499250
>buying early access

>>28499228
Because ejection seats have never ever been hazardous to a pilot's health, right?

>>28499256
Hi OP.

>>28499297
Didn't John McCain break some of his bones ejecting?

>>28499272
So you want to go back to the days where we had dozens of F-16s crashing every year because the USAF pushed directly from prototype stage to full rate production?

File: trump.png (70KB, 165x203px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 165x203px

>install switch and a headboard
>takes 3 years and millions of dollars
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

File: 1451365836625.jpg (93KB, 755x696px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 755x696px

>live in america
>get shot or killed by ejection seat

>>28499315
I recall a case where a Tomcat pilot got killed by their ejection seat. (No, not Top Gun)

There's a reason why pilots avoid using them when they can.

Is it really so hard to make some pilots put on weight?

>>28499333
>believing that being shot out of a supersonic fighter by a literal rocket bolted to your chair is in any way safe.

It's just the more preferable option to slamming into the ground at terminal velocity.

>>28499297
>>28499315
It's marginally better than crashing.

>>28499228
It's almost like armies have minimum required physical standards for a readon!

File: 1431843620129.jpg (26KB, 290x444px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 290x444px

>>28499374
only america has this problem

>>28499316?
Because those are the only two options?

File: 1305255909179.jpg (38KB, 526x522px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 526x522px

>people still think the F-35 isn't the worst aircraft ever to be produced

>>28499406
Only America fields jet fighters in combat m8

File: 1443301966647.jpg (56KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 604x453px

>>28499432
>Russians are still vatniks

>>28499228
>Fix to lower the standard minimum weight well below other aircraft
>"fix"
>Not major improvement over other airframes

>>28499342
Top Gun was pretty accurate in that. One-engine flameout causes a flat spin, and since the canopy isn't automatically to the rear there's risk of ejecting straight into it.

>>28499469
Why does the military say its a problem that needs to be "fixed"?
Why can't they say it's the same as every other plane, and will be improved at some point in the future.

>>28499469
>the people at the usual lower end of the spectrum are at elevated risk
>testing could find further problems at the other untested weights
>the program isn't a disaster

>>28499528
>herp derp F-35 is wreck cuz ejector seet has sae mininum wait limit!

>>28499600
I don't think you understand that performance is a part of the procurement process.

>>28499702

The "problem" only affects people who weigh less than 136 pounds, meaning that only person in the entire F-35 fleet is actually affected.

>>28499702
At what point is the F-35 not better than what it's replacing?

>>28499723
It affects whether or not the plane is considered operational as promised. Is your commanding officer watching you post?

File: 1452434088944.webm (619KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 1280x720px

>>28499524
Its the first time someone has made an issue out of it, despite it being an issue for other aircraft as well.

This is how desperate the anti F-35 crowd is for something negative.

>>28499745
>implying any other fighter has a lower limit

File: nope.jpg (22KB, 350x200px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 350x200px

>>28499745
>It affects whether or not the plane is considered operational as promised.

No it doesn't.

>>28499770
>changing my goal posts

>>28499782
>plane can do X
>oh wait the plane can't do X yet
So it's not fully operational then is it?

>>28499791
Lol. Your goalpost claim is that the F-35 isn't "operational" because of the minimum pilot weight, yet no other fighter is considered "nonoperational" with the same minimum. Keep grasping at straws, buddy.

>>28499800
Define X.

>>28499800

What is X?

>>28499825
>F-35 operational status is determined by other planes performance
Sweet jesus you are retarded.

>>28499850

The point is that the "problem" has never been considered a "problem" for any other fighter. So it really isn't a problem at all.

>>28499850
You have yet to explain how it effects the F-35's operational status.

>>28499228
So big guys can crash this plane with no survivors?

>>28499869
>>>/tv/

If you're <=136lb I believe that other operational ejector seats will have a problem with you.

There is a minimum weight limit to every ejection seat because if you're too light you will experience a stronger acceleration during ejection.

>>28500503
Also when your parachute opens, etc.

In the case of the F-35's ejection seat, the issue with light pilots isn't the actual shooting out of the plane via rocket chair part, the issue is that after the chair falls away and your main parachute opens, your body gets jerked hard from the shoulders.

In particular, the issue is that pilots <136lb are statistically likely to have necks too weak to resist their head (with the added weight of the helmet) jerking backwards when the main chute opens, potentially breaking their neck.

They're doing 3 solutions:

1. A switch which tells the seat that the pilot is lightweight and which makes the main parachute open milliseconds later than normal, reducing their airspeed and timing it so that the pilot's head is more inline with their body.

2. Reducing the Gen III helmet weight from 5.1lb to 4.67lb by changing the material of the foam inserts and making the day / night outer visor one that you have to manually put on vs having both already on the helmet.

3. Sewing a fabric panel between the risers of the parachute that stops their head from swinging backwards.

#3 is what's causing delays because they need a parachute that opens rapidly (uses lightweight stitching) but doesn't rip when different weighted heads swing against it. That means setting up and performing a lot of rocket sled testing.

>>28500806
Either way, there's time, especially since every pilot needs a custom fabbed helmet anyways, so it's not like there's going to be a warehouse of unusable helmets when changes are made.

>>28499406
What are you smoking? Literally every single ejection seat ever has been hazardous to underweight pilots. The F-35 is just the first time Martin-Baker actually tested it by body weight. This is an old, old problem all over NATO and probably Soviet/Russian aviation which is just now being worked on.

>>28500806
>Pilots less then 136 pounds.

Is.. finding pilots under a buck thirty six really that hard? The craft require people between 5'4" and 6'5".

>every ejection seat made has a problem
>the f-35 program is the first time this problem is noticed
>instead of crediting the F-35 program with discovery of this airframe-wide problem, anti's try to use this to discredit the aircraft
>the problem is currently being solved and will be fixed by the time it reaches FOC

Wow f-35 a shit amirite guiz

Its nice that its LRIP so they can fix a lot of aircrafts and get more money instead of doing prototypes and checking out the problems.

>All of these anons thinking that lightweight pilots being unable to fly is a bug

>When it's really a feature to keep female pilots from being able to crash one during the initial procurement phase

>>28501645
If they didn't do LRIP then 800 aircraft would have been produced with this problem before it was solved. You clearly do not understand the point of having a large batch of LRIP aircraft produced.

File: 1236487723335.jpg (48KB, 184x184px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 184x184px

>>28499228
>no manlets allowed
fucking priceless

>>28501336
Pilots lighter than 136 lbs are the only ones in danger with these seats. Which is part of the reason why this isn't really a big deal.

>>28501365
Well they did find a problem with the ejection seat so yes.

>>28501336
There's only 1 pilot out of the ~200 today that's <136lb (and they're male). Most pilots are around 176lb.

>>28501645
The only reason they found the yaw-axis rubbing issue with the F-35's engine was because an operational LRIP jet caught fire on the runway. More jets = more opportunity to find bugs, as well as more opportunity for operational maintainers to point out ways to improve maintainability, etc. It's about getting that balance between too few jets to find problems and too many jets to retrofit for problems. As it sits, the total retrofitting bill sits at about $1.5 billion, which is nothing compared to the total procurement budget.

What's the best guess for when the F-35 will start splattering brown people across a sandy landscape?

>>28501905
2020 at the earliest

>>28501905

Never.

It'll sit in a hangar until war is declared with a country worth breaking it out for.

It will then be nuked on the tarmac because ALL thise countries developed nuclear weapons AT LEAST 30 years ago because the F35's target enemy: a high tech industrial nation with a give a shit airforce AND no nukes doesnt exist.

>>28501905
USAF has said that after IOC they'll be treating it like any other asset in regards to CENTCOM. That means if they require X more fast jets, the F-35's will be on the table and able to go.

But yeah, realistically: >>28501991; maybe slightly earlier - their main priority at the moment is training and it'll remain that way until they have several dozen ready for deployment (at IOC they'll have 12-24 jets ready to deploy).

>>28502080
You do realise that it's replacing the F-16 and F/A-18C, which are responsible for about 50% of all CAS sorties? As those jets get retired, F-35s will slot into their place.

>>28502080
> a high tech industrial nation with a give a shit airforce AND no nukes doesnt exist.
yes it does
see:
>Saudi Arabia
>Turkey
>Parts of South America
>Israel
>Canada
>Parts of Europe (notably scandinavia)

is American likely to go to war with them? Probably not, but your argument is wrong

Additionally, a conflict with a nuclear armed nation isn't necessarily going to immediately result in nuclear hellfire, MAD is out, NUTS is in.

>>28502171
What's NUTS stand for?

>>28501905
I don't know. There aren't many brown pilots.

File: F-35.jpg (50KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x375px

F-35 is the biggest rip off, copy of a harrier, basically a smaller expensive B-2. Can't come up with a unique name and stole it from a Swedish fighter.

>>28502206

>Nuclear utilization target selection

Oppenheimer explained it as trying to keep options open even as nukes are flying. Don't target enemy nuke launchers so that you don't push them into a "use it or lose it" decision moment. Keep all lines of communication open for as long as possible; keeping trying to come to an agreement for as long as the other side will still talk to you. MAD says "Go all out immediately." NUTS says "Respond proportionately, keep trying to negotiate." I'm probably not explaining it very well but that's what I got.

I don't see a problem
No manlets allowed.

This proves the F35 is shit.

File: yak141_3.jpg (22KB, 738x508px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 738x508px

>>28502304
>copy of a harrier
If your going to talk shit about something at least do it right.

>>28501815
>better to just rush production and find problems later

>F-16 18 crashes per year before issues solved doing it that way
>F-35 0 crashes

>>28501905
Less than 5 years bro.
the GOV wants 2,000 F35s by 2018

File: tonesmug.jpg (32KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 650x366px

>>28502231
Noice.

File: vstol-4post.jpg (16KB, 510x260px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 510x260px

>>28502304
The Harrier is much different mechanically.

File: F-35B_Joint_Strike_Fighter_(thrust_vectoring_nozzle_and_lift_fan).png (213KB, 1800x940px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1800x940px

>>28503244
vs F35

File: I call bullshit.png (37KB, 210x249px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 210x249px

>>28502431
>Just shy of 350 US airframes at end of LRIP 10
>FRP 1 only expecting 107 more
>2000 by 2018

>>28499228
You realize the ejection seat problem is only for pilots whose weight is under the minimum, right?

>>28502431
No, 2443 is the planned number over its lifetime, we might have ~500 by 2020.

why cant we just restart F-22 production? Why cant we just develop ground attack a naval variants of an already proven air frame?

>>28503567
You should probably read up on all the systems the F-35 either has vastly upgraded versions of or brand spanking new capabilities compared to the F-22. Then realize each F-35, even in LRIP, is 1/4 to 2/3 the cost of an F-22 (depending on which accounting books you look at - there are a lot of weird and contradictory flyaway numbers out there for the Raptor).

That should be reason enough. The short answer is the F-22 just doesn't have the bay space or ground attack sensors an F-35 has/will have for strike/interdiction.

File: 1445052560348.png (11KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 500x500px

>>28503567
we can, but congress won't fund it (because they hate fun)

also the air force follows a high-low strategy that involves very expensive planes and less expensive planes working together

>>28503567
>Why can't we make a more expensive plane even more expensive for no benefit.

File: F-22N.jpg (119KB, 1100x582px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1100x582px

>>28503567
Too expensive. The F-22 was somewhere around 2-4 times as expensive per-unit as the F-35, and maintenance costs were even higher.

>Ground attack
We're pretty much getting that, albeit slowly, as new software upgrades qualify the F-22 with various smart bombs. There was the FB-22 proposal, but ultimately the USAF decided on the LRS-B instead.

>Naval variant
They tried, but there's really no way to navalize an F-22. Even empty, the F-22 is pushing the weight limit for carrier operations, and incorporating the
>strengthened airframe
>high-lift devices for lower stall speeds
>second crewman and larger radar
the Navy wanted made it far too impractical. Even if Congress hadn't cancelled the NATF at the end of the Cold War, it would have been a failure.

>>28503629
In this case the F-35 is the expensive plane and older F-15, F-16, F-18 and the like that are still in service are the less expensive planes that benefit greatly from operations in conjunction with F-35s.

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2015-02-23/lockeed-martin-unveils-legion-pod-f-15-f-16-retrofit

>>28499426
What's the third option?

File: 1444249170124.jpg (121KB, 662x807px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 662x807px

>>28503645
>there will never be an F-22 with swing wings
>yfw

>>28499432
samefagging this hard

>>28501336
It's not pilots who weigh more than 136.

It's pilots who weigh LESS than 136lb (ie. Spoopy skellingtons)

In essence the pilots need to lift more.

File: NATF-2S.jpg (405KB, 700x495px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 700x495px

>>28503703
Lockheed tried so hard to get a swing-wing stealth fighter going. The Navy ran three successive attacker programs through the 90's, culminating in the A/F-X, which aimed to fill the role of both the cancelled NATF (albeit with degraded air-to-air capabilities) and cancelled A-12. One of Lockheed's submissions was pic related.

Unfortunately, the A/F-X got cancelled because the Navy didn't have the funds to pursue that and the Seawolf-class subs. However, a lot of the design work contributed to the long series of alphabet-soup programs that culminated in the F-35.

My question is how they would prevent radar reflections on the joints of the swing wings. Can't really put tape over that.

>>28503824
Probably some sort of panel that extends flush between the fuselage and the leading edge wing root. Or they would have just optimized the RCS for a swept wing configuration because that would probably (someone correct me if I'm wrong, I don't know too much about F-14 operation) be how the aircraft was flying most of the time between takeoff and landing.

File: afx_lockheed_boeing_gd_01.jpg (34KB, 550x312px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 550x312px

>>28503887
Fully swept wings are meant for high-speed dashes. Lower sweeps aren't just for takeoff and landing, but loitering as well.

It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to cover up the joints in some way and design the wing to retain stealth features at certain pre-set wing sweeps.

>>28503444
Oh so it is an issue for exports and not for burgerland?

File: 1450347202155.jpg (220KB, 448x455px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 448x455px

>>28503965

>>28503645
>>28503787
>Beautiful hand painted action scenes of concept aircraft

All the CG we get now days makes me sad that this isn't being made any more

>>28503645
Super Tomcat would have been a fine consolation prize, but nooooo, we get a new F-18

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142

>>28499228
In this ITT thread lockmart shills are mad.

>>28502304
It's funny actually; it wasn't even originally meant to be called the F-35; when Lockheed won, someone asked what it's designation would be and the pilot said "I'm not sure, the F-35?" Media clung to that and the military just rolled with it.

>>28502419
>rush production
>Low Rate Initiial Production

>>28505098
You're missing the point that because we're doing all of the fault finding and far more extensive testing, along with manufacturing streamlining in the LRIP process, we're skipping all the shit that used to come with a new airframe.

>>28503645
The should have made the FB-22 though.

A medium nuclear bomber would have been fucking sweet.

>>28505105
That's *my* point - F-35's are being produced in *Low Rate* Initial Production vs Full Rate Production. If they wanted, there could be a thousand or more F-35s by now, but it would have been sloppy and a repeat of the F-16 drama.

File: .jpg (173KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 1024x768px

>The problem is currently being solved and will be fixed by the time it reaches FOC
>Already build F-35's need to be retrofitted with a skellington or lard-ass switch
>Pilots need to remember to manually switch it to correct setting every time they board the plane or their necks will snap
I thought F-35 was all about sensors, why can't Lockheed just fusion a simple weight sensing one into it then?

>>28505775
because money's tight and they'd rather spend the money on sensors that would keep the pilot from using the ejection seat in the first place

>>28503965
It's an issue only because the military apparently wants to let midgets be pilots
Even then, its only an issue in statistics.

>>28499228
>Testing for middle weight

>middle weight

I had a giggle m8

>>28505775
>Lardass or skellington

More like normal or midget skellington.

>>28505775
They talked about it in the House Armed Services subcommittee hearing late last year (Oct I think). According to Bogdan, they asked pilots what they wanted and they wanted a switch because they didn't trust a computer (even though they can't fly the plane without working computers) to sense their weight correctly - does make sense if you're borderline 136lb though I guess.

Also, they considered making it a switch that maintainers would activate (when they're prepping the plane and cockpit for the pilot and helping them get strapped in), but the pilots also didn't want to rely on others.

>>28506455
I can see it.

There is a difference between relying on computer or another person on basic flight, and relying on a person or computer for your final way out.

>>28505775
>F-35 was all about sensors, why can't Lockheed just fusion a simple weight sensing one into it then?

'Murica, I guess.

File: 1430946010185.jpg (6KB, 249x201px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 249x201px

>>28505775
>sensor.
Have the token women pilots sit on a 20lb weighted booster seat. they'll need one anyway. Problem solved, my consulting fee is 5 million dollars when should I expect my check lockheed?

>>28507115
>token women pilots
How is a job that doesn't make any distinction in physical capabilities between sexes a "token" position? It isn't like infantry where you have to haul 150lbs of gear daily.

>>28508190
>How is a job that doesn't make any distinction in physical capabilities
Yet the physical standards are lower for women

Besides which, from the people that I've talked to, there is certainly affirmative action going on that has nothing to do with having the most aptitude as a pilot.

>>28508190
combat will never have a lack of physical capabilities
Pilots get shot down occasionally you know?
Takes strength to handle G's
And women mentally can't handle it either.

>>28508252
>>28508637
>Women have been fighter pilots since almost the beginning with no issues
>hurr no labias in da cockpit!

>>28508715
>Women have been fighter pilots since almost the beginning with no issues

Not.. really

First USAF female fighter pilot was like 1993.

Can start talking about WW2 Russia if you like, but that was a war where people were giving Sturmgewehrs to 12 year olds. They were hardly the first, or the optimal, choice.

>>28508755
Military aviation is one of the areas where females have been historically and scientifically PROVEN to be just as capable as male pilots. I don't think they have a place in all MOSs, or even most, but it is pants on head retarded to argue they don't belong on the stick. They have slightly different cognitive and physiological strengths plus attendant weaknesses compared males in the job, but the simple fact that they can track more targets simultaneously than males on average alone is enough to argue their inclusion.

Arguing against them just makes any other reasonable discussions about women in the military impossible because you're clearly being autistically impervious to historical fact.

File: 1355332800963.jpg (51KB, 251x251px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 251x251px

>>28508824
>WASP in WWII had 25,000 applicants
>1000 passed
>program lasted years before a feminine ass touched a US plane
>38 of them still managed to die crashing US military aircraft vital for the war effort in STRAIGHT LINE FLIGHTS across the US between air bases.

so the WASP corp, taking the top 4% of all women pilots in the country, flying over US soil in brand new planes from base to base for transport, managed to have a loss rate 25% of that of the 8th fucking airforce flying daylight raids against Nazi Germany at the height of thier air defense.
>mfw women pilots

>>28509213
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kara_Hultgreen
She died just months after she was certified for combat, when her F-14 Tomcat crashed into the sea on final approach to USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72).

`_____`

>>28508824
>Military aviation is one of the areas where females have been historically and scientifically PROVEN to be just as capable as male pilots

Not really.

>inb4 you dismiss me saying this despite it being just as backed up as your drivel

>>28509213
holy cherrypicked horseshit batman

>received 1/4 or less the training of combat pilots
>flying obsolete and low maintenance priority older airframes
>maintainers were often USAAF trainee school students
>fewer pilot slots means lower acceptance percentage but to you means failure
whew, lad

>>28509296
because this never happens with male pilots, right?
because carrier flight ops are always 100% safe and routine, right?
because she totally wasn't flying an F-14A, one of the most notoriously difficult and failure prone variants of all the US teen series fighters, right?

why do people with no understanding of how military aviation works feel the need to constantly inflict their opinions on us without doing a simple 30 fucking minutes of research?

>>28509296
>check it out
>F-14A compressor stall

wow. it's literally fucking nothing.

>>28509346
>first female carrier pilot kills herself with errors that were obviously taught to her as being a no-no

How progressive

>>28509304
>p51 mustangs
>b17s
>b24s
>obsolete low maintence older airframes
why do you think they used female pilots domestically? the answer is transporting planes to where they could be loaded up and sent to the european and pacific theaters.

>received the 1/4 of the training about flying and not the parts about dog fighting and surviving an air raid against a hornet's nest of flak and Bf109s and fucking nazi jet fighters
>implying they died to mechanical failure
>not managing to survive mechanical failure of the literally new plane you're flying
>fewer pilot slots mean each applicant approved/passed is the best of the best... and WWII america's women had a casualty rate of 1 in 20 doing routine taxiing missions.
wew lad

>>28509363
This in spite of 20+ compressor stall losses by male pilots and several hundred incidents in the 15 years before of barely recovered and close calls with compressor stalls on the F-14A. Care to guess what the female pilot Class A incident rate in the USAF/USN/USMC is with female pilots compared to male?

It's lower. It's even lower than the over all numbers by percentage when you include only pilot error primary causes.

File: Lockheed_F-104A-10-LO_060928-F-1234S-011.jpg (621KB, 1800x1079px) Image search: [Google]

621KB, 1800x1079px

>>28499406
At least lockmart is setting up the ejection in the correct direction this time.

>>28509417
>1/4 or less of the training
>expected to fly any one of a dozen different aircraft on a given day
>recipe for total success
ok, kid

>implying they died to mechanical failure
prove otherwise. do you actually have a source on these losses, or are you just asspulling this shit?

>>28509213
>>28509417
Uh, you do realize that the WWII record for flight hours in a year is held by a WASP pilot, right? WASP pilots averaged more flight hours over their service than any branch combat pilots. Furthermore, they did this on often up to a dozen different airframes. That's actually pretty impressive, anon.

>>28508824
>the simple fact that they can track more targets simultaneously than males on average alone is enough to argue their inclusion.
Citation needed

>>28509563
http://www.kyb.tuebingen.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/2012/Olivari2012.pdf
This, for one. General studies about multitasking are a dime a dozen and unanimous in suggesting a female edge in simultaneous task number base capability and spacial awareness (against a male advantage in single task focus and directional awareness).

>>28509213
>>28509297
>>28509417
>>28509363
10 percent of US Army aviation pilots are women.
Only 3 percent of Class A incidents involve women pilots.
That's something to think about right there.

https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20140303.aspx

>>28505775
>what are g-forces

>>28509541
it's what male pilots did for the opening years of the war before they had to fight and beat the two biggest air powers in the world m8.

>>28509473
>hurr they only flew broken down old planes...
>ok so they flew fresh off the assembly line new car smell still in the cockpit planes, but they had to fly a lot of them bruh!
>flying prop planes at sub 300 miles per hour is so hard you need to remember slight differences in control layout bruh!
>killing yourself flying what IRL amounts to an aerostar 702 you have hundreds of hours of flight time with in calm skies means nothing!

1 in 20 death rate

>>28509645
how many of those incidents are caused by the top 10% of male pilots m8?
>inb4 it's not like being a female pilot in the navy/airforce means you're the best goddamn female pilot they could create they totally picked a range of skill levels to be fair flying multi million dollar jets that defend our nation...

>>28509718
>1 in 20 death rate
38 in 1,074 isn't even close to 1 in 20. It's closer to 1 in 30, in fact, or about 1 in a little more than 28. Are you incapable of basic math?

>hurr they only flew broken down old planes...
>ok so they flew fresh off the assembly line new car smell still in the cockpit planes, but they had to fly a lot of them bruh!
Care to guess what they trained on? They got 100 hours in a hodgepodge of 23 obsolete airframes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Airforce_Service_Pilots
>The "Woofteddies" (WFTD) also had minimal medical care, no life insurance, crash truck, or fire truck, and the ambulance was loaned from the Ellington Army Airfield, along with insufficient administrative staff, and a hodgepodge of aircraft—23 types—for training.
That's ridiculous. What are you even bitching about?

>flying prop planes at sub 300 miles per hour is so hard you need to remember slight differences in control layout bruh!
Confirmed for never having come within 10 miles of a pilot/copilot seat or even doing basic flight research.