FA-18 Hornet down

[TSMacNeil]

A quick primer on Military aircraft and their designed instability: (for those who may be unfamiliar)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VImEvFg3smQ

So, until we know what was working (or not) on that F/A-18 Hornet, this is all just conjecture. I get Dukes' comment about "riding it in", but when you have a pooch that can't be screwed it serves no purpose to kill yourself in the process. They dumped as much fuel as possible to reduce the inevitable fire, and popped out. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.
.02

[Duke]

They dumped as much fuel as possible to reduce the inevitable fire, and popped out.

I seriously doubt that. I don't think a F18 can even dump fuel. It was probably fuel/hydraulics leaking out after whatever mechanically went wrong. A compressor section of one of the engines exploding and send shrapnel everywhere will cause lots of various fluid leaks.

They were also seconds from take off and had no time to dump fuel.

[Karl Grau]

I don't think a F18 can even dump fuel.

My Navy neighbor says all carrier aircraft have the ability to jettison fuel. If a pilot needs to make an immediate return to ship after a catapult launch they need a way to lower the aircraft weight.
I think your right though in this case. It's much more likely that any fluids coming out were not because of anything the pilot did.

[TSMacNeil]

Of course it can:

Here's the full checklist for the F-18...item #16 in the cockpit switchology...(page 2)
http://mayprinting.com/TSB/data/tsbook/tsb81d.pdf

[Corner Carver]

Amazing! Nobody died!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/07/us/virgin ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[AT8M5]

Rich, I understand they have two engines. Remember, ive worked on these planes. thats why I mentioned airframe issues. It was reported that a wing fell apart. I dont know anymore details than that. And depending on the type of failure, yes one engone failure can cause a crash. Most likely not, but it can. I was an electrician, and hace dealt with these flight controls, engine management and the like.

This must have been one of those you worked on.

That was money right there!

Karl

[David Hunt]

Rich, I understand they have two engines. Remember, ive worked on these planes. thats why I mentioned airframe issues. It was reported that a wing fell apart. I dont know anymore details than that. And depending on the type of failure, yes one engone failure can cause a crash. Most likely not, but it can. I was an electrician, and hace dealt with these flight controls, engine management and the like.

This must have been one of those you worked on.

That was [/b]very offensive, what you wrote right there!

Karl

There, fixed that for you.

[Duke]

Cool, learn something new everyday.

[shagrath]

Oldskool, I took it as a joke. no worries.

[TSMacNeil]

Bottom line for me: horrible accident. The Navy statement (so far) is some "catastrophic mechanical failure". The "turkey feathers" on the exhaust nozzles would indicate full afterburner on #2 at time of impact and #1 was either grenaded or producing greatly reduced thrust (compared to #2) There's talk of compressor stall sounds by witnesses.
I just hate to see the pilots crucified in the court of public opinion before the facts are known. Maybe they dicked it up...and maybe not.
Time will tell.

[David Hunt]

An open nozzle would also indicate that it was at idle, or had been shut down.
But the left does look like it was somewhere above 50% thrust.
I will be looking for the results of the investigation. I too used to work on those in San Diego, so I am interested to see what happened.

[AT8M5]

Rich, I understand they have two engines. Remember, ive worked on these planes. thats why I mentioned airframe issues. It was reported that a wing fell apart. I dont know anymore details than that. And depending on the type of failure, yes one engone failure can cause a crash. Most likely not, but it can. I was an electrician, and hace dealt with these flight controls, engine management and the like.

This must have been one of those you worked on.

That was [/b]very offensive, what you wrote right there!

Karl

There, fixed that for you.

Humor, try it sometime. In light of the fact nobody was seriously hurt, or killed, it's okay to have some fun. Do you really think oldskool was serious???

Karl

[mooseheadm5]

All I know is, helicopter pilots never punch out.

Different mind set when you have no option but to stay with the aircraft.

Yes, heli pilot with a critical failure is probably thinking "I'm going to die" while a jet pilot with a critical failure is probably thinking "I'm probably going to die, I'll try to ditch this thing safely before punching out."

You seriously think they thought, "Ahh well, we'll just get another plane tomorrow"? Would you prefer they went down with the craft so they can't relay what happened and that their lives and all the training invested in them went to waste?

[oldskool]

Oldskool, I took it as a joke. no worries.

The "pee" foglights on that aircraft gave it away.

[TSMacNeil]

Not to beat a dead horse, but I think it's important for guys to understand what we're talking about with regards to "instability" or loss of control of an airplane. This is a video of an intentional
"departure" (...from controlled flight, in military-speak) with NO systems malfunctions at all. Notice how long (in time) and how much altitude loss (nose pointing down) it takes to get the airplane "flying" again. The accident we're discussing was right after takeoff...(they didn't have any altitude to work with)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQo8RCJkv7U

The aerodynamic challenge is to get air flowing over the wings again (flying). The earlier video I linked discussed the intentional nose-up design of fighter aircraft. In order to get air flowing over a wing again, you have to get the nose down to create airflow over the wing. That requires time and altitude. (Sometimes, poorly designed aircraft can't be recovered at all)
These guys had neither time or altitude, as I suspect the record will show.

[Rich Euro M5]

Tim,

why are you beating the loss of control scenarios, from what I see, the aircraft was under control until the crew exited the aircraft. A more relevant video would be glide tests after engine flame out during takeoff. But I don't believe the Navy of USAF test pilots purposely do that one.

We had a Thud (F-105) driver perform this test at Tinker AFB when I was stationed there. The aircraft had taken off with two 500 gallon drop tanks, and the bomb racks full of practice bombs, headed to the range to destroy groundhogs. Anyway, the engine flamed out when the aircraft was about 100 feet AGL. Gear was still out, pilot hit the pickle button and dumped the tanks and munitions which hit the airfield perimeter fence. He then touched down on the maintenance access road along the RAIL (Rabbit), bounced, and then pulled the handle. The aircraft flew over a public roadway, then crashed in a field. The pilot floated down into a tree at the edge of the field. An eye witness, ( the F-105 skipped over the road in front of him) helped the pilot extract himself from the tree. The entire F-105 fleet was grounded until the USAF found the root cause of the flame out. Finding was fuel controller failure.

Rich

[shagrath]

The plane was out of control. Thats when pilots bail.

[Rich Euro M5]

The plane was out of control. Thats when pilots bail.

Losing power is not out of control, which is departure from controlled flight. If they lost use of the control surfaces due to hydraulic or some other system failure, that's a different scenario. It still isn't a departure from controlled flight.

I'm looking forward to what the aircrew says happened. That is, IF the Navy will let them talk, which is doubtful.

[TSMacNeil]

I'm only illustrating that if the Hornet was out of control at that altitude, their bailing out was justified, since recovery at that altitude would be impossible. (in response to the sentiment that they should have stayed with it to the end)

I think the guys here deserve to at least know what "out of control" means in a F/A aircraft.

[Rich Euro M5]

I'm only illustrating that if the Hornet was out of control at that altitude, their bailing out was justified, since recovery at that altitude would be impossible. (in response to the sentiment that they should have stayed with it to the end)

I think the guys here deserve to at least know what "out of control" means in a F/A aircraft.

Got it. Even if it was as I think, loss of sufficient power to keep it flying, the crew was justified in punching out.

I've done some Googling, looking for information such as max weight, VS0, VBG, can it fly on one engine at max gross, etc and there's nothing easily found. When I get time, I'll see what I can find on AvWeb and other aviation related sites.

[Duke]

I've done some Googling, looking for information such as max weight, VS0, VBG, can it fly on one engine at max gross, etc

With the canopy both pilots and ejection seats gone, it became much lighter. That's why witness saw it go nose up.

[w0014170]

Damn......that guy better not have punched out and let his bird crash in buildings.

Or what Duke? At times unfornunately this can not be avoided as you know. It's certainly fortunate that no collateral damage occured. By all means avoid and take the hit yourself, sometines as you know this cannot be avoided. Glad it turned out allright

[Xenocide]

For anyone interested

I haven't read much of it myself yet, but since this thread is still going...

I don't know much about the hornet, but it's hard for me to believe that the civilians below them weren't the first thing on their minds when they punched out. Whatever the case, it's a regrettable event.

[Rich Euro M5]

I've done some Googling, looking for information such as max weight, VS0, VBG, can it fly on one engine at max gross, etc

With the canopy both pilots and ejection seats gone, it became much lighter. That's why witness saw it go nose up.

I did some Googling and found a document,Planform Comparison - E/F to Earlier Models, which provides some information about the F/A-18 C/D "Heritage" with recommendations for the followup F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. I've skimmed the article and found a number of interesting facts regarding deficiencies in the F/A-18 C/D's handling characteristics in high Angle of Attack (AOA) flight. I also found the statement below very interesting.

As noted earlier, the vertical tail was sized by single engine minimum control airspeed in the approach/landing configuration. The vertical tail was grown 15% over the heritage aircraft, although initially, it was to remain the same size as the F/A-18C/D. The growth was added after stability and control assessments proved the baseline was inadequate.

This dispels the myth regarding twin engine military jet attack aircraft as centerline thrust and not having handling problems during single engine operation. There apparently is a single engine minimum controllable airspeed VMC for the F/A-18C/D. There's also something referred to in the paper as AOA lock, which basically means at certain high AOAs, the control surfaces become ineffective. Another area of operation known as the reverse side of the power curve might have also been a contributing factor.

My WAG is there was a combination of weight, low airspeed, VMC, engine power, and aerodynamic limitations that came together and created a unrecoverable situation for the aircrew.

[TSMacNeil]

I found similar documents...and I agree.

[shagrath]

Richs comments are correct, its what was taught during super hornet c school.