Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BBBB on January 18, 2008, 04:17:38 PM
-
This is a simulation of the accident that happened last year when an F-15 broke up in flight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R7BWrqmgac&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHMy4BEkk8I
-
Wow. What were they doing? Dogfighting? And why did the rear gears deploy after the cockpit seperated? Like to hear eagl's thoughts on this.
-
He was clearly stick stirring.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Wow. What were they doing? Dogfighting? And why did the rear gears deploy after the cockpit seperated? Like to hear eagl's thoughts on this.
I am not really sure, but I would chalk it up to some sort of hydraulic issue.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Wow. What were they doing? Dogfighting? And why did the rear gears deploy after the cockpit seperated? Like to hear eagl's thoughts on this.
Probably the same as when you watch old ww2 films.. If the gears are held up by hydraulic pressure. Lose it and they flop down because there is nothing to hold them in place other than the pressure.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Probably the same as when you watch old ww2 films.. If the gears are held up by hydraulic pressure. Lose it and they flop down because there is nothing to hold them in place other than the pressure.
Sunds right. I know for a fact in the F16 there is a handle in the cockpit that you can pull a certain handle that will send hydrolic fluid all over the place for putting the gear down in emergancy situations.
The pilots lucky he didn't punch into the to aft portion of the break up.
-
That simulation video is slowed down. That all happened really fast. Even so that would suck to eject only to hit your aircraft.
-
I'm actually amazed the pilot didn't black out when that happened. Can you imagine the amount of G's he must have pulled.
I was also thinking the same thing about what if he hit the fuselage when ejecting.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Wow. What were they doing? Dogfighting? And why did the rear gears deploy after the cockpit seperated? Like to hear eagl's thoughts on this.
lag
-
There are any number of reasons the landing gear could have come down. The primary landing gear handle is not directly mechanically connected, however the alternate gear extension lever is a mechanical connection so if that connection were pulled as the cockpit separated, it could have activated the emergency landing gear extension mechanism.
edit - losing utility hydraulics should not automatically lower the landing gear. There are mechanical uplocks that would not automatically release with simple loss of utility hydraulic pressure. That said, the hydraulic system is very complex and tearing off the nose, which has hydraulic components, could have weird results due to either hydraulic system effects or other mechanical issues with the various actuation systems that run from the cockpit to the rest of the plane.
But really it could be almost anything and without reading the actual engineering analysis, it's just speculation.
As for the maneuvers, it appeared to be a standard BFM setup. The beeping you heard was either an angle of attack or G limit warning (not sure, I never heard what the F-15C tones sound like) so there was some maneuvering going on at the time.
I was a bit suprised to see the nose ripping off upwards rather than downwards, but a failure of one component while pulling G's might not result in the nose ripping off until the G's were relaxed if the failed part was not required to hold the nose on while pulling G's, but was actually required to hold the nose on during lower G flight. A part that is under tension while pulling G's and under compression when not pulling G's (or vice-versa), could certainly fail under G loading but not result in a catastrophic breakup until the G's were reduced.
-
If the aeroplane was doing 400 knots and the nose ripped off the aerodynamic forces would easily lift the nose section like a piece of paper when you throw it in the air.
What one would expect however is that the rest of the aeroplane would also climb steeply when the weight distribution changed dramatically.
-
I wonder how many G's that pilot endured in the breakup, then the ejection?
What model did you fly, eagl?
-
I don't know much about aerodynamics but I do know a few things about tensile strength of metal under high stress like that must have been. It doesn't tear away like you would think it should.
-
Yikes! That would have been scarey as crap. Hope he got out ok.
Wab
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I wonder how many G's that pilot endured in the breakup, then the ejection?
What model did you fly, eagl?
I flew the F-15E.
-
The "mud hen". That is a wicked bird.
-
On a side note.
(http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m24/Jameswells26/eagles.jpg)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U22_7jsQy7s
AvWeb report on the breakup.
-
If what was said at the end of the video is true, it is a sad way to go. The F-15 has a proven combat record. It would be sad to see the F-15 on it's way long before it is time.
On the other hand I am pretty sure the Air Force is plenty happy with this turn out, now it can dump more money into their F-22s and F-35s.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
On the other hand I am pretty sure the Air Force is plenty happy with this turn out, now it can dump more money into their F-22s and F-35s.
No offense, but that statement was made out of ignorance. The USAF is already a couple of decades behind necessary equipment replacements, has been told it will never get "enough" money to fund requirements that have been defined over decades of analysis, and now you're saying they should be happy that they now have a huge national defense capability gap that will cost billions of dollars to close? We aren't going to get EXTRA billions of dollars because among other competing interests such as funding AIDS relief to entire nations of rapists in Africa, the Army in worse shape than the USAF. So that means something else gets cut.
Happy? Hell no. We've lost a huge chunk of the aircraft that actively defend the United States from attack. That is a problem, not just an opportunity to try to grab a few extra billion dollars from a continuously shrinking budget (shrinking in terms of % of GDP and % of overall national budget).
-
Maybe your not happy, and there are most likely many more like you, but somewhere down the line there is someone who is pretty OK with the turn out of this situation.
This is not something that can not be fixed. Sure it will cost a ton of money to fix these aircraft, but it is something that can be fixed. However, rather than putting a project together to fix the F-15 and upgrade them to a "new" standard, like they did with the A-10, they are simply going to scrap them. That tells me all I need to know about the majority of Air Forces thinking on this matter.
Maybe happy is not the word to use, but disappointed is not the correct word to use either. This is a gap that has to be filled. Tax dollars will fill it, tax dollars would have fixed those birds, instead tax dollars are going to be spent on the latest and greatest from Lockheed.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Maybe your not happy, and there are most likely many more like you, but somewhere down the line there is someone who is pretty OK with the turn out of this situation.
This is not something that can not be fixed. Sure it will cost a ton of money to fix these aircraft, but it is something that can be fixed. However, rather than putting a project together to fix the F-15 and upgrade them to a "new" standard, like they did with the A-10, they are simply going to scrap them. That tells me all I need to know about the majority of Air Forces thinking on this matter.
Maybe happy is not the word to use, but disappointed is not the correct word to use either. This is a gap that has to be filled. Tax dollars will fill it, tax dollars would have fixed those birds, instead tax dollars are going to be spent on the latest and greatest from Lockheed.
I don't think you quite understand how appropriations work.
-
In Texas (Ellington Field), the F-16 squadron is being replaced by UCAVs.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I don't think you quite understand how appropriations work.
The words "appropriations" and "work" do not belong in the same sentence together.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
The F-15 has a proven combat record.
the F86 saber has a "proven combat record".
-
Originally posted by john9001
the F86 saber has a "proven combat record".
What's your point?
-
Originally posted by BBBB
What's your point?
think about it....
-
BBBB,
This is going to sound pretty harsh, but you're pretty far off track.
Originally posted by BBBB
What's your point?
The point is that rebuilding F-15s would simply make them rebuilt outdated planes instead of broken old outdated planes. Again, your ignorance on the topic is showing, as you seem to be convinced that the USAF should be content to rebuild obsolete equipment.
The F-15 is two full generations behind. Some will call it only 1.5 generations behind, but the fact is that the SU-27 family was an evolutionary step to at least parity with the F-15, and every non-US plane developed since then is a generation ahead of the F-15.
Simply put, rebuilding F-15Cs make about as much sense as pulling "combat proven" F-86s (or F-4s or F-111s or any other obsolete fighter) out of the boneyard and rebuilding them. Their day was over a decade ago, and the simulated combat record of the F-22 over even our best F-15s with the advanced radar and aim-9x proves the point.
To my knowledge, there have not been any simulated BVR kills against an F-22 yet. This is important. If you don't get it, then you never will until the F-22 is old enough for the details to be declassified. I won't bother to say "trust me", but the day of the F-15 as an air dominance fighter is coming to a rapid end. More rapid than we would have liked since the F-15 still has a valuable role in national defense especially if outfitted with new radars for low observable cruise missile defence, but otherwise throwing a bunch of money to rebuild F-15s with major structural damage makes no sense.
As for your statement that the F-15Cs could easily be rebuilt... What is your source? According to everything I've read (which is pretty much everything the USAF has released on the subject), the structural defect is a major part of the airframe and replacing it would be equivalent to cutting out the entire floorpan of your car and welding in a replacement... They're not sure if it's even possible to fix it, and they are definately not theorizing about how much it would cost, who would pay the bill, and what would be cut to make the funds available.
So... is this some conspiracy theory of yours, or do you have ANYTHING to back up your statements including the one that the USAF has a viable option to replace a major structural backbone of nearly 200 F-15Cs that have been out of production for a couple of decades? The current production line most likely can't be modified to make F-15Cs again, since the F-15E is quite different under the skin and is actively producing F-15E variants for Korea and Singapore...
Further, using the A-10 upgrades to justify spending a lot of money to rebuild F-15s further demonstrates that you don't know very much about modern warfare concepts. Their missions are entirely different, and the environment in which they operate is likewise very different.
Saying "this tells me all I need to know..." tells ME that you already have a biased opinion, a closed mind, an agenda to push, a conspiracy theory to nurture, and a nearly complete lack of relevant knowledge.
I said it would sound harsh, but there it is. Sorry.
-
You guys might be interested in something a visiting F-22 pilot talked about when he visted Sheppard AFB recently. We were talking about relative performance, and why pilot training graduates won't be going straight to the F-22 after training. It's hard to quantify without talking numbers, but basically his point is that the F-22 is such a leap forward in performance, the old standard of "if you can fly the T-38 you can fly anything" is no longer even close to being valid. The F-22 is such a monster that they figure they'd have new pilots killing themselves left and right if they went straight to the F-22 out of UPT.
The current plan is to send F-22 candidates to the F-15 first. The instructors will see how the new pilots handle the F-15. Those that seem to be best able to handle the extremes of F-15 performance will then get a chance to try the F-22.
The justification was a bit like this... The F-16 and a lightweight F-15C come very close to exceeding the limits of human endurance. The number of pilots who GLOCed and died in the F-16 before the new combat edge life support gear was developed is proof of this. I pointed out to the F-22 guy that the F-15E with the larger -229 engines, when stripped of the CFTs and pods, has a lot better performance than the F-15C. He said yes, that's very true. Now imagine that the F-22 can wipe the floor with a stripped down -229 engined F-15E, but the F-22 can do it when in full-up combat configuration...
That's the difference. The F-22 is a whole new ballgame. It's such a monster, they are REALLY concerned that new pilots will flat-out kill themselves if we don't make sure we send only the most capable pilots to the F-22, using the F-15C as part of a post-grad flight screening program. That's amazing to me, and I do this for a living.
-
I don't recall expressing any "conspiracy theory" I have no problem with the Air Force buying the newer F-22s and F-35s. In fact I am all for it. The simple point I was making is that it seems odd to me that the Air Force will spend billions to re-build the A-10 and upgrade them to the A-10C standard and yet it won't spend the money to modify it's current fleet of F-15s. Quoting it was not "cost effective".
In some ways this whole mess is a God send for the Air Force brass that want to update the fleet, but knew they were never going to get the budget they wanted to phase out the F-15s and ring in the newer aircraft anytime soon. This whole mess sped up that process 10 fold.
No where did I write that it would be an easy fix, you mis-quoted me left and right. I have yet to read anywhere where the Air Force has said the aircraft can not be fixed. I have read that it is not "cost effective". In the future please fully read and understand my post's before replying to me about things I never wrote.
I am not saying the Air Force had anything to do with the accident. I am far, far, from a conspiracy theorist. Please do not hint that I am in the future. Save the tin foil label for someone else. All I am saying this situation has in some ways good timing. The Air Forces "want" for the latest and greatest, just turned into a "need".
-
Salute to the end of the 'Ferrari' of fighter aircraft then.. it was a helluva plane and served very well when it needed to.
I wonder what nickname the pilots will come up with for the F-22 :)
'Monster' mebbe?
Ohhh yaaa .. it fits :D
-Frank (who would hate to be the target in its airspace)