F22 belly landing

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pheonix358

They do, but there's a period where you're starting to fly, but not quite airborne when you can pull the gear up and the aircraft will settle.

In this case they're not sure if he pulled the handle too early or it was a mechanical issue.

Why does it have to be either? Could he not have attempted a rapid ascent takeoff and pulled the gear to early, at not enough speed? He could've been riding that fine line between airborne and not. The pressure sensors in the landing gear sense pressure, period. They would not allow a retract if they were loaded.

I suspect he pulled it early, unless their is indeed a mechanical issue. RED X!

a reply to: Tempter

If you pull it with weight on, when you reach that specific point there's enough weight off the gear that the switch will allow them to retract, and the aircraft doesn't always have enough speed to keep from settling.

They're looking at mechanical issues too, both in the gear and the engines.

a reply to: tadaman

I'm being facecious

For everyone saying that picture is fake, does this one work for you, or is it fake too?



Unofficial reports say that the left engine flamed out as he advanced the power to take off and he didn't realize it until he had gotten airborne and pulled the gear up. There's about zero chance he failed to notice. I suspect it's more likely it failed as he went airborne, or it failed and he deliberately put it down gear up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ack, and I thought the original pic looked bad..

a reply to: Grimmley

Something is odd though. If it was only engine failure the left side flight control surfaces should match the left. Everything on the left side looks like it lost hydraulic pressure.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Loss of hydraulic pressure is a good reason to immediately get back on the ground, and if you lose it while the gear's retracting you might get a belly down scenario. There's a lot of ifs, but there's a trail there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The original photo deemed to be fake is a zoom (crop) of a jpg. There are obvious artifacts around edges of the tail. That doesn't mean it is fake.

This is why you always shoot raw!

They seem to have a slight leak under there. [/sarc]

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't notice that at first. Tho that is kinda if interesting. I am not claiming to any sort of engineer, could there been an engine problem maybe debris cut the hydraulics?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Came to drop off those photos..
Thanks
theaviationist.com...

a reply to: Grimmley

Aircraft usually have two hydraulic systems that operate different systems. I don't know the F-22 hydraulic system, but if it was engine driven on that side, it might have failed when the engine did.

Redundancies didnt work then?

a reply to: Blackfinger

There aren't redundancies for the engine. My best guess at this point is when the engine failed the hydraulics on that side went with it. I first heard about this not long after it happened and will hopefully hear more about what caused it once they know.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That was what I was trying to infer actually. I was thinking it possibly a critical failure or the like.

originally posted by: GBP/JPY
F-22 on the belly....shadows are there ya have to be authorized to see em.....where's my confounded authorization....

in a 727 best to clear on past rotate Velocity.....at least some indicated.....or ya look so inadequate when the main gear wont lift off...it's dangerous to my mind....727-200's in the other countries where they paint em up so pretty'......squat switch for electric de-ice too.....or you see your tape on the leading edges burn off and fall

If I remember from my 727 systems classes, the APU is also tied to the squat switch, which is only on the left main gear. That makes sense given that because of location, the APU on the 727 can't be used in flight. On some aircraft the thrust reversers are also tied to the squat switch. The 727 was a great airplane. It did a lot of things really well: it was fast; it could and would come down really fast with no (or low) power; it gave you a nice rest period while you waited for the JT8D engines to spool up. It's too bad they are too noisy to use in the US or Europe. If you want to buy one to use in Africa, you can find all you wany for less than $600,000. They were $22 million each in 1982.

If this is any indication, we'll see this aircraft back some time around 2024.

www.flightglobal.com...