F-22 Crash, why?

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:39 am

Why did this happen? Looks like maybe using g's to get gear down, or a thrust vector problem?

http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/fighter ... _crash.mpg

STRIKER · Post by **STRIKER** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:29 am

You might want to read the text right there in your own link next time lqcorsa...

In this specific case the story seems to be the following: YF-22 has thrust vectoring engine nozzles control doubled with gears - when gears down thrust vectoring is off. Pilot executes go-around, raises landing gears. It causes thrust vectoring turning on and sensitivity of control highly increases. Dynamic stability decreases and as a result - overswinging. In addition ground effect makes the task to fix control stick for pilot almost impossible.

In the early testing they obviously didnt think the dynamic feedback (or lack there of) from the gear down/up in relation to the thurst vectoring would be a problem-hence it being the test video/aircraft. The pilot actually did a fantastic job saving the aircraft in the end (with that bellylanding). It really shows you how calm the pilots control movements were under pressure considering the computer was overshooting his pitch inputs right on gear up for the go around. Oh well, lesson learned.

Burner · Post by **Burner** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:11 pm

STRIKER wrote:You might want to read the text right there in your own link next time lqcorsa...

Classic

I'm still amazed that the engineers would fubar the handling characteristics at low speed so badly, and that the pilot didn't punch in afterburners, plant the stick a bit aft and wait for the aircraft to gain altitude. With the amount of thrust the F-22 outputs he could have kept the nose swinging through a 20 degree nose up ocsillation and still been gaining speed no problem. It looks obvious that the pilot purposefully belly landed, or at least I hope that's what he was doing, otherwise that was some of the worst flying ever

lqcorsa · Post by **lqcorsa** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:21 pm

I guess I didn' think to take off part of the link, since that link brings you to a page that I was never on. Thanks.

Tailhook · Post by **Tailhook** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 2:23 am

Have you also ever put into consider it is a test for crash landings also. The reason why I would say they are testing the reactions and mobility of an emergancy landing is because the F-22/YF-22 are STILL in "testing".

And the USAF only has about a total of 10 22's so far, so why would they have a crash soooo soon.

Post by **Lawndart** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 am

Viper101 wrote:Have you also ever put into consider it is a test for crash landings also.

With a price tag of $361 million per aircraft, no one wants to ditch a single airframe. Trust me!

Compared that to the Super Hornet (price tag $57 million) which is also has a very high price tag, and you quickly understand how much more expensive the Raptor is. Sheer common sense says that all testing will be done with "ZERO" loss of man or machine. Period! ...to the extent possible.

Tailhook · Post by **Tailhook** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:16 am

lol i know what you mean LD, but still you never know if their testing it or not. AND have a camcorder at that GIVEN moment, its not like it was planned ahead for everybody to watch, cause if a plane is landing and that sorta thing happens in an instant. Boom ya got a crash landing on purpose

Post by **Lawndart** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:28 am

Viper101 wrote:lol i know what you mean LD, but still you never know if their testing it or not. AND have a camcorder at that GIVEN moment, its not like it was planned ahead for everybody to watch, cause if a plane is landing and that sorta thing happens in an instant. Boom ya got a crash landing on purpose

THEY'RE not testing to crash Raptors! You'd have to be out of your mind to scrap a $300+ million dollar airplane. Hence, they simply don't! I don't understand your reasoning behind "it being on purpose" at all

Tailhook · Post by **Tailhook** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:33 am

im NOT gonna start an arguement on the forums with ya LD

So i guess imma have to go along with you

STRIKER · Post by **STRIKER** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:00 pm

ol i know what you mean LD, but still you never know if their testing it or not. AND have a camcorder at that GIVEN moment, its not like it was planned ahead for everybody to watch, cause if a plane is landing and that sorta thing happens in an instant. Boom ya got a crash landing on purpose Smile

Hey Tailhook! USAF doesnt crash planes like that on purpose these days bud....period. LOL just like LD said it costs wayyyy to much. It being a test flight of course they are going to have cameras everywhere...just in case something went wrong like in that case.

Been in the AF for 8 years now....trust me man what LD is saying is true. Its not the same AF we had back in the 50's and 60's where we just crashed stuff on purpose....plus do you honestly think we would intentionally crash and airplane like that with a pilot in it.....come on man.

Tailhook · Post by **Tailhook** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:02 pm

oh god. see who you got handing my butt too me now LD!

STRIKER · Post by **STRIKER** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:04 pm

Viper101 wrote:oh god. see who you got handing my butt too me now LD!

LD? I believe your the one who replied about this subject bud.

Post by **Lawndart** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:13 pm

Viper, you don't want to mess with Lead Solo! Hehe... no pun intented. We're not arguing with you per se. You're simply just reasoning beyond common sense. Any "handing" of anything here you brought upon yourself entirely on your own bud...