B-2 crash near Guam? (Update: Post Crash Pics & Video)

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Looks like one pilot had a bad ejection. They're airevacing one pilot to the Tripler Medical Center in Hawaii for spinal compression injuries.

The entire fleet is also on a safety stand down, which was expected.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]




posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Oh now this makes things interesting. Back in 1990 there were charges leveled that Northrop had badly designed a vital system in the flight controls of the B-2. The Actuator Remote Terminal (ART) suffered from two significant problems. The first was lack of cooling in the area around the ART which could to overheating and failing. The second was that all four redundant boards for the ART system were tied to a single resistor. If that resistor failed then all four boards were useless. This would allow the flight controls on that side of the aircraft to deploy putting them into uncontrolled flight.

The ART takes commands from the flight control surfaces and provides feedback to the flight control computers. This problem was supposedly fixed in 1991, yet during Operation Allied Force EIGHT YEARS LATER, they were having a problem with the ART units overheating. It was one of the highest failing parts on the B-2, despite the earlier fix to allow more cooling in the area, and changing out the resistor issue.


More information:
www.flightglobal.com...

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
What wasn't destroyed in the impact burned. Once RAM goes up in flames it's going to completely destroy itself unless they put it out pretty quick. I'd say the changes of anything being salvaged is pretty slim.


So what exactly is in RAM that makes it burn then? Just out of interest since I'd have thought it would need to be fairly heat proof or the engine exhaust would burn it, or is it different there?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Nobody outside of the project knows. They use a different material around the exhuast to try to absorb some of the heat. Plus the exhaust isn't hot enough to reach the flashpoint. They cool the exhaust before it's released out the back, to cut down on the IR signature. On the F-117 they vent upwards along the back of the wing, and have lined the exhaust with bricks, because they absorb the heat so well.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I spoke with a former B-2 crewman yesterday. He said if the crew of the mishap aircraft was forced to abort their takeoff for some reason they had a number of factors against them. Andersen has a 12,000-foot runway, so there is not a lot of leeway during a high-speed refused takeoff. Few crews have experience in executing such an abort. If the aircraft was at takeoff speed or had already left the ground, ejecting was the recommended option rather than attempting a belly landing. In such a scenario the B-2, because of its configuration, would be likely to flip over. Even if it didn't, the exit door is on the bottom of the aircraft. The top hatches are jettisoned during the ejection sequence.

Incidentally, the frames for the escape hatches are considered primary structure. Damage to them would, according to my source, likely result in a write-off of the airframe.

A few additional comments:

The RAM is flammable because it is essentially rubber and plastic. This material is simply a matrix for ferrites (microscopic spheroids of carbonyl iron) taht are the essential ingredient of the radar absorbers.

The exhaust deck is lined with LI-900 ceramic tiles, the same as are used on the space shuttle orbiter. These are used to reduce the IR signature from the exhaust. The F-117A is equipped with denser, LI-900-coated, bricks that also have radar absorbing qualities.

While many people have bemoaned the cost of each B-2 airframe, nobody has mentioned the fact that they cost so much because there are only 21 of them. Had 100 been built, the unit-cost per airframe would have been much smaller as the base cost for manufacturing infrastructure, etc., would have been spread over the entire production run.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 02:40 PM
link   
i don't know ...but maybe it's just me...question....isn't the shootdown of the "satellite" and the crash of a "b-2" just a little too close, as far as the timeframe? i can't put my finger on it, but something smells. maybe someone can answer a few questions... first, the video of the explosion of the "satellite", referred to the pieces as being no bigger then a football...and yet, considering the distance between the actual camera that recorded the explosion and the satellite itself... there sure seemed to be pieces bigger the a football...second... any airplane taking off from guam would have had to be fully loaded or close to fully loaded with fuel, and the fact that when a plane crashes, after just barely taking off of the ground...wouldn't the debris field be longer in length with fire and smoke spread out over a larger area? and if you say that maybe the fire was by the time this footage was shot, already pretty much put out or under control, wouldn't it be plausible that we would see alot more activity in the video (helicopters, firetrucks, all kinds of different vechicles and personnel) in the general area? remember this was not a cessna that went down...this was one of the most guarded planes in the U.S. military



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
If you are taking off and you slam nose first into the ground then everything is going to be in a small hole in the ground piled together. The only time it would be spread out like you're suggesting would be a hide speed low angle impact that allowed debris to be thrown in the direction of travel.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


but there is no nose on this craft ...it's basically a flying wing...more suseptible to rolling and tumbling. and i can't remember ever seeing a plane crash from take off just plugging into the ground. with a wingspan of 172 feet, and the fact that the crash site is in the middle of the base, not off the end of the runway i can't understand how it would plug into a hole without reaching some appreciable altitude



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

also it appears that this "carbon fiber" craft hit on the tarmac, not into a softer surface like dirt and grass, and wouldn't carbon fiber composites burning create a larger,darker smoke cloud, especially with the craft fully loaded with fuel? this is why something just doen't look right to me



[edit on 24-2-2008 by jimmyx]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
It still has a "nose". The point where it "bends" at the front is considered the nose. Just because it doesn't look like a traditional nose doesn't mean it's not. But from the reports I've been posting here, it DIDN'T hit right back on the runway. It banked right and possibly hit wingtip first, and pulled the nose right around and into the ground.

As for the color of the smoke cloud I've seen an F-117 burn that was darker, but then turned lighter as it burned. We don't know how far into the fire this video/picture was taken. Whether it was right after impact, or after they had been fighting it for awhile. If they had been fighting it for awhile, it would have been lighter as it got smothered.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


ok i grugingly agree with you, because i'm not a student of plane crashes...ZAphod58...but where is everybody, you know, firetrucks with watercannons, jeeps, personnel, ...jesus...if a B-2 crashed on my base. i'd have every tom, dick, and harry, out there either putting the fire out, cordoning off the scene, securing the rest of the immediate location



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


and the first thing that would come to my mind considering the safety record of the B-2, would be sabatoge, shootdown, shoulder fired missle close to the base...there just doesn't seem to be much activity in this *snip*TYPE OF SITUATION




Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   
They were out there. Every eyewitness says they were there. They were probably fighting it from beside the buildings where they were blocked from the cam. And the LAST thing I would want was every Tom Dick and Harry out there to help out. First of all, there is a LOT on the B-2 that is hazardous. We had to take a guy down to shower the first time we had a B-2 through, because something was leaking and got on him. They couldn't tell us what it was, just that he had to wash it off quickly. And someone that's not trained in how to respond may pick up something that they shouldn't.

For a layman, yes it might have been shootdown. For base personnel it would have been accident first, and THEN looking at shootdown. There were two more B-2s behind them. ONE of them would have seen SOME evidence of it being shot down if that's how it happened.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


and the first thing that would come to my mind considering the safety record of the B-2, would be sabatoge, shootdown, shoulder fired missle close to the base...there just doesn't seem to be much activity in this *snip* TYPE OF SITUATION


Did you see the information I posted before about the ART problems they had in 1991 and were supposedly fixed? They were fixed, but yet 8 years later it was STILL having problems.

(quote edit)

[edit on 25-2-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

ok...thanks for the info..it clears up a few things in my mind...and i appreciate the time you took to explain in a reasoned approach...too often that is lacking in these forums. and allthough i am skeptical about alot of what is officially put out to us. i am still able to keep an open mind for both sides of any discussion.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 04:32 PM
link   
When it comes to aviation, it's actually pretty easy for me to keep my temper and try to explain things calmly and rationally.
I can see where you're coming from with what you were saying. If I hadn't spent as much time as I did around the military and around planes, I probably would be thinking the same things you were.



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

it takes first hand knowledge and obviously you have it. alot of sharp and honest people inhabit our military, and sometimes i wish they would be able to talk more freely about some "OTHER" posts to ATS. i am one that feels the term "national security" has come to mean "cover your ass" on too many benign subjects, and has fed into this feeling of distrust in our elected leaders. and i feel that many sane and sensible military people probably think the same way. after all, they too are just trying to do their job, like all of us civilians



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I know this is out there...maybe it was shot down by aliens? Any sitings around that time in that area?



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Why didn't they kill either the first one, or both of them then? Why JUST that particular plane? All four of them were taking off at the same time. One was airborne, one would have been just taxiing onto the end of the runway, and the fourth would have been sitting just off the hammerhead. Why did they pick that one particular plane to shoot down?

Sorry but I'm gonna have to go with an uncommanded elevon deployment.

[edit on 2/24/2008 by Zaphod58]



posted on Feb, 24 2008 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Zaph,

You know as I do just how many things can go very wrong at this time of incident. We had multiple situations during carrier quals, and even tarmac incidents. Luckily they did not end up as this did, but yes I think your theory sounds very plausible. Too bad there is no other video of the actual lift off, but maybe that will come later???
There could have been engine failure as well, as that can cause various torque issues but it does really seem that the pilot had the aircraft in a bank, at least a little bit. That, of course, indicates that he/she was not having an engine problem but rather a control surface failure.

As for all the antigravity/UFO people/shoot down people.....please tell me you are all thinking it is already April Fool's day!? This was no attack, no alien infiltration, and no....there is no antigravity (not on the B2 anyway).

I was also away and find this a wild story....but if you actually look at the service record of the B2, it's a pretty amazing story. They have been flying for a long time and have an incredible safety record. It's just that the general public considers them brand new and cutting edge, and without possibility of error.

Peace, Mondo



top topics
 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join