246
Nuclear consent switch on an F-16 Fighting Falcon
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2026
246 points (100.0% liked)
HistoryPhotos
1512 readers
845 users here now
HistoryPhotos is for photographs (or, if it can be found, film) of the past, recent or distant! Give us a little snapshot of history!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
- No genocide or atrocity denialism.
- Photos MUST be at LEAST 10 years old, and ideally over 20. We appreciate that we are living through events which will become history, but this is ultimately not a comm for news or current affairs, but events which have occurred some time in the past.
Related Communities:
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Three different fastener heads within like two inches.
Government efficiency at its best
High torque on the side holds one of the cockpit fairings and isn't involved with the switch. Flathead fasteners are trapped screws and part of a different module that can be removed independently of the switch. Only the phillips is part of the switch assembly.
The vast majority of screws are high-torque, while a few odd bits and bobs are different types for one reason or another. It's not as bad as you'd expect.
Not a Phillips, that's a Pozidriv.
And Torq-Set might be higher torque, but it still sucks. The heads strip and bits cam out just like Phillips. If anything, they use it because it's easier to take out because the offset gives it more torque in removal.
I'm guessing the slotted screws are there to discourage a 200 lb gorilla from trying to use an impact driver.
Just use Torx, for the love of science. I'll allow Robertson but only for wood screws.
It may be a pozidriv, but I guarantee you the vast majority are being removed and installed with a #2 phillips driver, chalk it up to government efficiency again, lol. However, as egregious of a fastener sin as this is, to my knowledge it has yet to cause a catastrophic incident or frequent work stoppages.
The slotteds are maybe a step up from a thumb screw, not much torque at all on those, If you have to use an impact driver someone fucked up intentionally in such a way that it would almost constitute deliberate sabotage. They're recessed below the panel so you need a little something for purchase, hence the slot. They're also integral to the component, so no chance of FOD with those.
It's a 50 year old airframe, torx was still relatively new around the same time it was first being drawn up. Torq-set has been around since the late 50's or early 60's IIRC and is a proven NASM standard. They went with what they knew worked in an aviation application, and it gets the job done well enough. And, as I was pointing out in my last comment, it's typically one kind of fastener per job, unless its a fairly big job. So the work flows fairly smoothly considering the age of the aircraft and number of subcontractors involved.
Imagine if there was an accidental nuclear strike because the government refused to spring for $0.01 worth of panel fasteners and the industry standard will-only-fail-once-every-million-years arrangement hit that one-in-a-million situation.
Penny-wise and pound-foolish.
I'm not thinking of upfront cost, I'm thinking about the engineer that needs to constantly change drivers to access something. Huge pain in the ass, plus a higher chance of FOD.