estorilm
Topic Author
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:37 pm

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20129/f-22-raptor-came-to-a-rest-on-its-belly-during-major-mishap-friday-at-nas-fallon

Looks really ouchy to all the exotic materials and RAM involved.. yikes. Apparently engine failure at takeoff. Brought in to assist in VSF training at "Top Gun" too (which is a cool concept, I wasn't aware of joint training much less with the F-22s, got to be a cool aircraft to train with/against!)

Quick question though - can't an aircraft with such an immense thrust-to-weight ratio (I think it's like 1.16:1 or something) EASILY climb out (probably at a decent rate as well) on a single engine? I'm sure they'll actually provide some information so everyone doesn't start thinking the F-22 has some sort of single-engine vulnerability.

I wonder if it was a software problem? You'd certainly think they've seen just about everything imaginable at this point, being so long after testing.
 
angad84
Posts: 1982
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:19 pm

Maybe control authority issues? I remember reading somewhere that F110-powered F-14s didn't do cat shots at full afterburner because the new engines had so much more thrust than the original TF30s, that if one failed at max reheat the other would overcome the available rudder authority.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 10201
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:22 am

And I would expect it to have some sort of automatic system to increase thrust if necessary, and even deflect the rudders on its own.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
estorilm
Topic Author
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:45 pm

Aesma wrote:
And I would expect it to have some sort of automatic system to increase thrust if necessary, and even deflect the rudders on its own.

Exactly - considering the incredible complexity and ingenuity involved with the control surface deflections (fascinating to watch) something like that would almost seem trivial.

Something must have been *damaged* I would think? I can't run too many scenarios through my head where an engine failure results in... that.
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 3:07 pm

Each engine on a Tomcat is offset from the center approx 5 ' so there could be a noticeable asymmetric thrust situation at high thrust and high angles of attacks when one fails. Even then, I doubt the pilots used a reduced setting during T/O as mentioned by a previous poster.

An F-22's engines are offset maybe 2 feet and really wouldn't present much of an asymmetrical thrust problem if one failed. In the case of this accident, I won't speculate on what happened, but they do occasionally due mil power takeoffs and if one failed just after raising the gear, not getting the good engine into AB might present a problem
 
zanl188
Posts: 3597
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:01 pm

estorilm wrote:
Aesma wrote:
And I would expect it to have some sort of automatic system to increase thrust if necessary, and even deflect the rudders on its own.

Exactly - considering the incredible complexity and ingenuity involved with the control surface deflections (fascinating to watch) something like that would almost seem trivial.


Good idea for commercial aircraft. Maybe not so much for a fighter.

Do we know the gear failure wasn’t systems related? If the hydraulic pump powering the gear at the time was on the failed eng, gear may have lost pressure with no time to recover.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2831
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:56 pm

RetiredWeasel wrote:
Each engine on a Tomcat is offset from the center approx 5 ' so there could be a noticeable asymmetric thrust situation at high thrust and high angles of attacks when one fails. Even then, I doubt the pilots used a reduced setting during T/O as mentioned by a previous poster.

On the D-model, they did.

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14d/f14d.htm

The extra thrust of the F110 allows almost all carrier take offs to be made in dry power. While this does result in fuel savings, the main reason why F-14D's do not tend to use afterburner during carrier launches is that if an engine failed the huge thrust of an F110 in full afterburner would produce an unrecoverable yawing motion in too short a time for the pilot to react. Thus for an F-14D an afterburner launch is rare, whereas the F-14A requires full afterburner unless very lightly loaded.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
RetiredWeasel
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2014 8:16 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:41 pm

Moose135 wrote:


You would be correct. I looked it up in the D model NATOPS. There are youtube video's, however, that show D's lighting their burners right after liftoff, but they are mainly demo flights and I assume they have a dispensation.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5503
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 18, 2018 12:39 am

Speaking of NAS Fallon and the F-14D there was a D that belly landed there back in the early 90's. The pilot throew the gear handle up too soon and belly flopped back on the runway. Ground down the TCS/IRST pod down about halfway. There are pictures out there, I just have to find them.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Tue Apr 24, 2018 5:34 am

Moose135 wrote:
RetiredWeasel wrote:
Each engine on a Tomcat is offset from the center approx 5 ' so there could be a noticeable asymmetric thrust situation at high thrust and high angles of attacks when one fails. Even then, I doubt the pilots used a reduced setting during T/O as mentioned by a previous poster.

On the D-model, they did.

http://www.topedge.com/alley/text/f14d/f14d.htm

The extra thrust of the F110 allows almost all carrier take offs to be made in dry power. While this does result in fuel savings, the main reason why F-14D's do not tend to use afterburner during carrier launches is that if an engine failed the huge thrust of an F110 in full afterburner would produce an unrecoverable yawing motion in too short a time for the pilot to react. Thus for an F-14D an afterburner launch is rare, whereas the F-14A requires full afterburner unless very lightly loaded.



Dick Cheney never should have killed the F-14 program. For some reason he hated the F-14. It could fly laps around the F-18 while carrying twice the payload.

Ending the F-22 program was just as tragic, considering fewer than 200 were produced.
 
salttee
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:24 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
Dick Cheney never should have killed the F-14 program. For some reason he hated the F-14. It could fly laps around the F-18 while carrying twice the payload.

Ending the F-22 program was just as tragic, considering fewer than 200 were produced.
The F-14 was a fine plane and I agree that it was tragic that they were broken up instead of parked in the desert waiting for a new owner. But it's role was as an AIM-54 delivery vehicle and the AIM-54 was definitely getting obsolete. We should have just sold the whole package to Iran; Iran is no threat to the United States or any NATO countries. It would be wise for us to not push Iran into the arms of Russia.

IMO as it turned out, ending F-22 production was for the best, the F-35 is a far better platform.
 
User avatar
JackMeahoff
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 2:12 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:52 am

salttee wrote:
The F-14 was a fine plane and I agree that it was tragic that they were broken up instead of parked in the desert waiting for a new owner. But it's role was as an AIM-54 delivery vehicle and the AIM-54 was definitely getting obsolete. We should have just sold the whole package to Iran; Iran is no threat to the United States or any NATO countries. It would be wise for us to not push Iran into the arms of Russia.


I'm glad you brought that up, because the missile that replaced the AIM-54, the AIM-120, has less than half the range of the AIM-54, which is another net loss to the Navy in terms of capability. I also agree with you Iran is no boogeyman.

salttee wrote:
IMO as it turned out, ending F-22 production was for the best, the F-35 is a far better platform.


How can you claim that without any proof? The F-35's only claim to fame so far is getting routinely trounced dogfighting 40 year old F-15s. Pilots hate the F-35. It is a fat slug that tries to be a Marine, a Navy sailor and an Air Force cadet at the same time, and fails miserably at all three. Not to mention the program cost, $1.508 trillion, or the equivalent of one hundred fifty (150) Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
 
salttee
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:04 am

JackMeahoff wrote:
salttee wrote:
The F-14 was a fine plane and I agree that it was tragic that they were broken up instead of parked in the desert waiting for a new owner. But it's role was as an AIM-54 delivery vehicle and the AIM-54 was definitely getting obsolete. We should have just sold the whole package to Iran; Iran is no threat to the United States or any NATO countries. It would be wise for us to not push Iran into the arms of Russia.


I'm glad you brought that up, because the missile that replaced the AIM-54, the AIM-120, has less than half the range of the AIM-54, which is another net loss to the Navy in terms of capability.
I'm no insider, but as I understand it the AIM-120 is fire and forget although it will take midcourse correction, target reassignment, also it follows a target that attempts to evade the missile. The AIM-54 requires the launch plane to track the target until burst, and requires the target to fly straight and level if it wants to get hit.

JackMeahoff wrote:
How can you claim that without any proof? The F-35's only claim to fame so far is getting routinely trounced dogfighting 40 year old F-15s. Pilots hate the F-35. It is a fat slug that tries to be a Marine, a Navy sailor and an Air Force cadet at the same time, and fails miserably at all three. Not to mention the program cost, $1.508 trillion, or the equivalent of one hundred fifty (150) Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
Where's your proof? That works both ways you know.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 5:11 am

JackMeahoff wrote:

I'm glad you brought that up, because the missile that replaced the AIM-54, the AIM-120, has less than half the range of the AIM-54, which is another net loss to the Navy in terms of capability. I also agree with you Iran is no boogeyman.

The AIM-120D has a equivalent range to the AIM-54, and a fighter can carry more AIM-120's than the F-14 could carry the AIM-54, and bring them all back to the carrier.

In fact, a 6 AIM-54 missile load on the F-14 was considered to be an overload condition; it cannot return to the carrier with all 6 AIM-54's; you need to drop 2 of them into the ocean before you could attempt a landing. A more typical load out would load only 2 AIM-54's, plus a number of AIM-7's and AIM-9's, as loading more AIM-54's significantly impacted range due to increased drag.

Remember, by the end of service, the AIM-54 was obsolete and increasingly unsafe and maintenance intensive to use; the electronics onboard was obsolete and cracks had started to appear in the solid rocket propellant (cracks in the solid fuel rocket propellant are not good for a solid fuel rocket).

JackMeahoff wrote:
How can you claim that without any proof? The F-35's only claim to fame so far is getting routinely outclassed dogfighting 40 year old F-15s. Pilots hate the F-35. It is a fat slug that tries to be a Marine, a Navy sailor and an Air Force cadet at the same time, and fails miserably at all three. Not to mention the program cost, $1.508 trillion, or the equivalent of one hundred fifty (150) Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.

See earlier comments about pilot skill and experience in their aircraft being a major determining factor in air combat.

And the $1.5 trillion dollar number includes things like the salaries of the pilots and maintainers, the cost of fuel, etc, and it is also all inflation indexed for almost 50 years... how the hell can you figure out the price of jet fuel in 2068? Or what the inflation will look like?
 
Ozair
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:52 am

JackMeahoff wrote:

How can you claim that without any proof? The F-35's only claim to fame so far is getting routinely trounced dogfighting 40 year old F-15s.

C'mon Jack, enough with the trolling. Instead of trying to reference a very poorly written click bait article at military.com you could have gone to the original article on defence news, https://www.defensenews.com/smr/kadena-air-base/2018/03/27/how-is-the-f-35-improving-its-dogfighting-skills-in-japan/ which makes it very clear the F-15 actually wins some of the time and that the ledger is in favour of the F-35.

So can the F-15 beat the F-35 in dogfights?

“I mean, sometimes,” McGehee said, adding that all aircraft lose in aerial combat sometimes, and for various reasons.

“Part of it is the aircraft and part of it is the man in the aircraft,” he continued. “We’ve got some really talented pilots here who are able to gain the offensive on a lot of other pilots. A pilot who understands this aircraft very well and is very skilled at it is pretty lethal no matter what he’s flying, so it’s possible.”

Direct quote, "so its possible." That is a stark contrast to routinely trounced don't you think?

JackMeahoff wrote:
Pilots hate the F-35. It is a fat slug that tries to be a Marine, a Navy sailor and an Air Force cadet at the same time, and fails miserably at all three.

Jack, the reports from aircrew are completely opposite to what you are reporting. Marines, Navy and Air Force aircrew are all incredibly pleased with the jet.

From a Marine
"I love the airplane, and it's great to be flying something that's newer," Maj. Brendan Walsh told IBD.

He previously flew F/A-18C Hornets, which debuted in the 1980s, but he's now flying a so-called fifth-generation fighter with stealth technology.

"Even in today's battlefield and even with what some people call immaturities on the F-35, I would hands down rather be in an F-35 than an F-18 in just about any situation," Walsh said.

https://www.investors.com/news/what-its ... ot-speaks/

A naval aviator
I have flown a handful of different aircraft, starting out in flight training with the T-34C Turbo Mentor and the T-45A and C Goshawks. After receiving my wings, I flew the F/A-18C Hornet with Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113. Now, I’m flying the F-35C Lightning II. And just like that sounds, the F-35C is leaps and bounds ahead of what I’ve grown accustomed to.

The F-35C is a stealth aircraft with powerful avionics that are at the cutting edge of technology. The F/A-18C was at the cutting edge in the ‘90s, but the venerable Hornet is showing its age after more than two decades; so you can imagine the difference.

Regardless, ignoring the tactical capabilities of the F-35, it is a similar piloting experience to most of the other jet aircraft that I have flown. The giant touch screen is a big advantage—it has certainly got me feeling spoiled. As much as I’ll always love the legacy F/A-18C, I have to admit that I would probably feel a bit disappointed if I went back to using the smaller, all-green displays in the Hornet.

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2016/08/26/ ... vys-f-35c/

An Air Force pilot
“There is nothing that I have seen from maneuvering an F-35 in a tactical environment that leads me to assume that there is any other airplane I would rather be in. I feel completely comfortable and confident in taking that airplane into any combat environment,” Lt. Col. Matt Hayden, 56th Fighter Wing, Chief of Safety, Luke AFB, Arizona, told Scout Warrior in a special pilot interview.

Furthermore, several F-35 pilots have been clear in their resolve that the multi-role fighter is able to outperform any other platform in existence.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... best-16790

Most of those comments are a couple of years old, before the release of Blk 3F which had the full envelope available to aircrew. Feedback on the full envelope is available from the May edition of Combat Aircraft,

What didn’t help is that until about 18 months ago we were restricted in envelope, which meant we couldn’t pull as much g as we wanted to, nor fly with high-alpha. It was an eye-opener for all of us when those restrictions were lifted and we finally got to see the full potential. Actually, it was an eye-opener for a lot of adversary pilots as well.’
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 3:28 pm

ThePointblank wrote:
In fact, a 6 AIM-54 missile load on the F-14 was considered to be an overload condition; it cannot return to the carrier with all 6 AIM-54's; you need to drop 2 of them into the ocean before you could attempt a landing. A more typical load out would load only 2 AIM-54's, plus a number of AIM-7's and AIM-9's, as loading more AIM-54's significantly impacted range due to increased drag.


Was this only for the carrier? Can it land with 6 on land?
 
estorilm
Topic Author
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Wed Apr 25, 2018 4:22 pm

sovietjet wrote:
ThePointblank wrote:
In fact, a 6 AIM-54 missile load on the F-14 was considered to be an overload condition; it cannot return to the carrier with all 6 AIM-54's; you need to drop 2 of them into the ocean before you could attempt a landing. A more typical load out would load only 2 AIM-54's, plus a number of AIM-7's and AIM-9's, as loading more AIM-54's significantly impacted range due to increased drag.


Was this only for the carrier? Can it land with 6 on land?

Any land bases where the F-14 could land would have had the F-15 anyways - the advantage of the F-14 and AIM-54 combination was blue-water ops and projection of power far away from the homeland, but mostly envisioned as fleet defense at long ranges to protect the carrier / task force.

Even though all shots fired in anger missed, it's still one of the coolest missile programs out there (something about that kind of range, especially back then, is pretty impressive).
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Thu Apr 26, 2018 8:11 am

estorilm wrote:
Even though all shots fired in anger missed, it's still one of the coolest missile programs out there (something about that kind of range, especially back then, is pretty impressive).


I think that is a somewhat misreprentation of the facts. To the best of my knowledge, and I am open to correction on this, USN fired 3 AIM54's in a combat situation and yes all 3 'missed'. But the first 2 were at the extreme of range in a tail chase against a Mig 25. the third was again at long range against a Mig 23. In each case the the Migs bugged out so on an interception mission that is a mission success.

I belive in missile test firing the USN AIM54 had quite a good record. Also the Iranians claimed considerable success with the Phoenix.

Also I believe it could land on land with 6 AIM-54, the restriction to 4 for carrier operations.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2993
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:17 am

spudh wrote:

Also I believe it could land on land with 6 AIM-54, the restriction to 4 for carrier operations.

Correct. It was a landing weight restriction for returning to a carrier; a F-14 loaded with 6 AIM-54's and enough fuel for landing plus reserves would exceed the maximum permitted landing weight for a carrier landing.
 
WIederling
Posts: 6250
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:46 am

completely different thing:

will this airframe be repaired ( simple or difficult ) or is it a write off ( or just the fuselage )?
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 2631
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Thu Apr 26, 2018 10:21 am

WIederling wrote:
completely different thing:

will this airframe be repaired ( simple or difficult ) or is it a write off ( or just the fuselage )?

It will almost certainly be repaired, as was the last F-22 airframe that had a belly landing. It took a while though, last time the jet didn't fly again for at least a couple of years after the incident.
 
estorilm
Topic Author
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 3:07 am

Re: Elmendorf Air Force Base F-22 mishap @ NAS Fallon, gear-up landing after engine failure.

Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:54 pm

WIederling wrote:
completely different thing:

will this airframe be repaired ( simple or difficult ) or is it a write off ( or just the fuselage )?

It's inconceivable to me that it wouldn't fly again - just for PR reasons alone they will likely get it back into the air, but with how few were actually built, scrapping even a single air frame simply isn't an option.

Didn't they just spend something like 25m bucks to pull an old test frame out of storage and upgrade it to the new avionics standards so they can add it to the test fleet?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos