It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F/A-22 Raptor crash analysis : flight control system malfunction

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Stealth - you yourself linked to the fact it was triggered by the pilot and not the hardware itself




posted on Aug, 12 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Stealth - you yourself linked to the fact it was triggered by the pilot and not the hardware itself


Sensors that are this important to safety of flight should not be left for a pilot to catch. These need to switch power sources automatically, have an internal back-up power source, have an indicater that warns the pilot or ideally have all three. What if in the middle of a dogfight both engines flame out? The engines are what powers the generators, if you have a flameout you will lose electric power. That is why many aircraft have Ram Air Turbines or RAT as they are called. These are the little propellor driven generators that are driven by the aircraft's slipstream. It seems to me some people are being a little too hard on the Major. This may have been a procedures problem that popped up for the first time. I am sorry about the loss of the aircraft, but I am glad that the pilot is ok. Our old Air Boss on the Indy used too say "I can get another airplane, I can't get another you.". I just hope that there is a lesson learned here and steps are taken to prevent it from happening again.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I believe Concorde flew for nearly 35 years before its first crash.
And I believe there have been no Eurofighter or Rafale Crashes yet, but its early days really.



posted on Aug, 13 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jonesey_dude
I believe Concorde flew for nearly 35 years before its first crash.
And I believe there have been no Eurofighter or Rafale Crashes yet, but its early days really.


I know there was one Typhoon crash somewhere over Spain. I believe the cause of the crash was engine failure.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Icarus Rising
Sounds like a procedural mistake in the good Major's failure to reinitiate the system and go back through the checklist after turning off the engines, switching to aux power for maintenance, then turning the engines back on. Attitude indicators such as these, that the aircraft can't fly without, are way too important to make assumptions about when there is an interruption of the power-up sequence. In this case the assumption that they were still turned on resulted in the destruction of the aircraft. How much does one of those babies cost? The good Major may not get a chance to fly one again.


Yup, career is over after something like this.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
whoa.. whys the cockpit so far away from the rest of the aircraft in that picture in the second post i think it was.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Ok, well, there it is... The Raptor isn't invincible... It's a pity tough...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Pilot error is the biggest cause of plane crashes. Probably 80% of them are human related.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Pilot error is the biggest cause of plane crashes. Probably 80% of them are human related.


Exactly, But that means that the Raptor actually can lose a air-fight... If the enemy pilot is highly trained, and better then the pilot in the Raptor, he's got a good shot to shoot down the plane... I believe that everybody here relie on the Raptor because it, fast, stealthy, maneuverable... etc. etc... Nobody here relies on the pilots, Everybody here believes "if the plane is good, it's gona win anybody" But that isn't the truth, the plane is good because of the pilot...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   
The Raptor isn't invincible. The problem however is getting to knife fighting range against it. Between the AWACS coverage that's sure to be there, and the sensors on the Raptor itself, it's not easy to get close enough to dogfight one.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
It really does'nt surprise me to hear that, Westpoint 23, is always straight to the defence of anything US.

Of course we know he is, American, and i would say he is obviously, very patriotic, which is not a bad thing at all! But he really does not like to hear anything negative about the good ol' US of A!!!

The Raptor is a fantastic aircraft, no doubt, but like everything built, it is not invincible, and just because it's American, does not mean that everything they do or build, is the best, because it is not, i can assure you!

Sorry if i have offended you Westpoint 23, but hey, that's life!!!



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by veritas 7
It really does'nt surprise me to hear that, Westpoint 23, is always straight to the defence of anything US.

Of course we know he is, American, and i would say he is obviously, very patriotic, which is not a bad thing at all! But he really does not like to hear anything negative about the good ol' US of A!!!

The Raptor is a fantastic aircraft, no doubt, but like everything built, it is not invincible, and just because it's American, does not mean that everything they do or build, is the best, because it is not, i can assure you!

Sorry if i have offended you Westpoint 23, but hey, that's life!!!


Exactly... That's exactly what I think, the Raptor is good, it's very good... However We can't brag about it yet, not yet... It isn't even combat prooven...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The Raptor isn't invincible. The problem however is getting to knife fighting range against it. Between the AWACS coverage that's sure to be there, and the sensors on the Raptor itself, it's not easy to get close enough to dogfight one.


Well, that's what it's designed to do... Nobody have actualy prooven that the system works like that... The plane should have 1000 of test hours, not to mention the whole "combat-prooven" thing... And we don't know if: well the Chinese for instance build an EMP missile, with extra long range and a uppgrade the radar on their dear J-3... That way the Raptor wouldn't be invincible... The problem with the Raptor is that it relies too much on computers...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
So does everything else coming out now. There are so many "what if" scenarios out there, that if you thought about them all you'd never build an airplane, because you'd try to build one that could survive all the what ifs and you'd get one that didn't do anything, including fly.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Exactly... That's exactly what I think, the Raptor is good, it's very good... However We can't brag about it yet, not yet... It isn't even combat prooven...


FMF, simply put, your a broken record.
You keep talking and playing this game revolving around the cliche' of combat proven, when applied to the Raptor, and yet when you talk of any other aircraft, you do not mention combat proven. Interesting, no?

Hey, btw, is your beloved Gripen combat proven?
How about the SU-30 MKI?
How about EF-2000 Eurofighter?
Maybe the Rafale?
How about the J-10 or anything else the Chinese have built recently?

I'm not sure what your problem is here, but that combat proven cliche' you so love to use is becoming irrelevant and over-used. Again, you fail to take into account air-to-air simulations, like DERA, and actual in air combat environment testings, say versus 4 F-16s and 5 F-15s, etc.

Combat proven, bah!







seekerof

[edit on 14-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

FMF, simply put, your a broken record.
You keep talking and playing this game revolving around the cliche' of combat proven, when applied to the Raptor, and yet when you talk of any other aircraft, you do not mention combat proven. Interesting, no?

Hey, btw, is your beloved Gripen combat proven?
How about the SU-30 MKI?
How about EF-2000 Eurofighter?
Maybe the Rafale?
How about the J-10 or anything else the Chinese have built recently?

I'm not sure what your problem is here, but that combat proven cliche' you so love to use is becoming irrelevant and over-used. Again, you fail to take into account air-to-air simulations, like DERA, and actual in air combat environment testings, say versus 4 F-16s and 5 F-15s, etc.

Combat proven, bah!







seekerof

[edit on 14-8-2005 by Seekerof]


Well, dear seekerof, I've never bragged, or told anything about the planes above... I've left them unmarked... So they are totally irrelevant... I've never said anything about the Rafale, the EF, the Su-30... You are missing my point... I don't hate the Raptor... Actually the totally oppsite, I like it... But what I disslike are the ones who brag about it YET... And about the Gripen, It is not my favourite plane... I've told you this many times, but you don't listen... My favourite plane is still the F-18 wich in my opinion is the king of the skye...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So does everything else coming out now. There are so many "what if" scenarios out there, that if you thought about them all you'd never build an airplane, because you'd try to build one that could survive all the what ifs and you'd get one that didn't do anything, including fly.


This is not about building an aircraft... That is totally irrelevant... You are, jsut like seekerof, missing my point... I like the Raptor... But what I disslike is that poples are bragging about a plane that hasn't shot down a enemy fighter YET... When the day arrive, I will gladly enmit that the plane is "the best"...



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
[
Well, that's what it's designed to do... Nobody have actualy prooven that the system works like that... The plane should have 1000 of test hours, not to mention the whole "combat-prooven" thing... And we don't know if: well the Chinese for instance build an EMP missile, with extra long range and a uppgrade the radar on their dear J-3... That way the Raptor wouldn't be invincible... The problem with the Raptor is that it relies too much on computers...


If you're not talking about building planes why make a remark like this? This is ALL about building a plane against a specific threat, and you talk about how it relies too much on computers, which is about how it's built.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

If you're not talking about building planes why make a remark like this? This is ALL about building a plane against a specific threat, and you talk about how it relies too much on computers, which is about how it's built.


Wrong again, this is not about building planes against something spesific... I'am just trying to point out some of it's potential weaknesses... But if you build a plane that's jut overall ok, it isn't good, a good plane is made to take all the possible hits...



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy





link


I know these people. one of them is me.

EDITED TO ADD:

Yes, I'm the one in the tin foil body suit.


[edit on 08/12/71 by Esoteric Teacher]




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join