Yeovilton Air Day (Including Tornado and Hecules 'incidents') -Merged- pics [Archive]

BEagle

8th Jul 2006, 21:12

I vaguely, vaguely recall tales of what happens to a Tornado engine if the electrical power is shut off before the engine has been shut down? Something about the engine slamming itself to max thrust, then destroying iself - because mechanical governors were deemed unnnecessary by 'them wot knew'?

Wan't an early Italian Tornado virtually destroyed when something similar happened?

I hasten to add these were tales remembered from some 15-ish years ago...

Ali Barber

8th Jul 2006, 21:17

"There will never be a situation when the aircraft is without electrical power" said the designers - unless you're a bit quick with the gen and batt switches when you shut down. Engine winds up looking for the governor to limit but, with zero volts, there is no limiter and the engine very very quickly placticises and pours itself out the back end! Good pics on that link.

Feck

8th Jul 2006, 21:57

There are also failure modes where it isn't the brave pilot chappie's fault...

Radar Muppet

8th Jul 2006, 22:28

Any chance of posting the pics here as I can't seem to get access to them?

Thanks

insty66

8th Jul 2006, 23:38

BEagle your memory is pretty good.

I suspect more than perhaps a simple fault.

Check the position/ angle of the nosewheel. That's not right!

Mandator

9th Jul 2006, 04:50

BEags is on the right track. A Tornado of 27 Squadron lunched both engines at Eggebeck approx September 1984; there may have been others on diferent squadrons/units. The 27 Sqn incident resulted from a crew-in snag on the CSAS and the usual trick was to trip and reset some circuit breakers in the front hatch. This has to be done by the groundcrew and a Luftwaffe techie set about the job. Unfortunately, as well as the CSAS CBs, he also tripped the MECU CBs (this was in the days before the Tornado had much in the way of computers and electronics). Lo and behold, both engines chucked the whirly-whirly metal bits all over Northern Germany. There was nothing the pilot could do about it. Naturally, the techie said he did'd do anything wrong and after a couple of weeks investigation and a double donk change she came back without any difficulty.
Looking at the nosewheel angle on the Yeovilton pic, I wonder if they had some sort of fault. If the crew had powered down before engine shut down presumably the nosewheel steering would have been inoperable, although it may have castored due to the assymetric thrust. I thought this problem would have been nailed by now.

Beeayeate

9th Jul 2006, 07:53

Ref nosewheel angle - could be pilot was trying to turn away from the Gnat and refueler. On another forum, witness said it seemed to just keep rolling after re-light.

Ghostflyer

9th Jul 2006, 08:08

XI(F) had a run to destruction in 1990 when the front seater depowered the DECU by switching the master switch off a bit quick. The back seater was Grumpy Bob and he was last seen diving into the cockpit to turn it back on. Made a hell of a bang.

But does it have to be a run to destruction? Why can't it just be a contained failure? It may have zippo to do with the electrics.

Ali Barber

9th Jul 2006, 08:17

The engine accelerates and, without electrics, there is no voltage to tell it that it has reached 100%, so it keeps accelerating. Apparently, it all happens in a VERY short space of time. Was an issue for total electrics failure I believe - had to get back on the ground before the battery ran out otherwise expect a sudden surge of power and then silence!

John Blakeley

9th Jul 2006, 08:49

We certainly had at least two incidents of this happening at the TTTE Cottesmore in the early days - the first time to the Senior German Officer who was shutting down in the correct order but quite quickly and as I recall he switched the battery master off with the engine LP cock still moving to the closed position. Fortunately the aircraft had brakes on and was fully chocked - which this one does not appear to be so if the engine did run away the brakes held well!

Wasn't there also a very early Marham accident where the crew suffered total electrical failure at night with the engines subsequently accelerating to destruction - perhaps somebody can remember the details - sadly I think the Nav was killed and the total failure was not explained in my time with Tornado - I do recall that after all night investigations on the Cottesmore simulator the only thing we could find that would do this was inadvertaent operation of the crash switch and the EA issued an STI to wire lock the switch. I had assumed that following our incidents and reports the DA would have looked at this area - perhaps they did but there was no money to modify the aircraft. If this was an engine runaway, and the pictures do not necessarily confirm this, it is amazing that the aircraft can suffer the same "expensive" problem 25 years on, and it sounds like there have been plenty more incidents in the meantime.

Tornado electrics were always interesting!

JB

Jobza Guddun

9th Jul 2006, 10:53

Mike / John,

I think you might be referring to the first RAF GR1 loss, the IX Sqn jet which went into Wolferton Marsh, near Sandringham, sadly with the loss of the pilot? I believe that was down to a total electrical failure, which would have caused engine runaway in those days?

IIRC, the GR4 has been modded in the last few years to prevent the same thing happening now, Can't remember the detail of it as I'm not an engine basher, but I'm sure a pilot will be able to clarify it.

Jobza

Roadster280

9th Jul 2006, 11:34

Gents, forgive my dull mind, it's early morning here.

I seem to be reading, that a consequence of total electrical failure is that the engines wind themselves up to destruction?

Bloody hell.

Dundiggin'

9th Jul 2006, 13:32

Tell you what........it was lucky the Puma aircrew witnessed the whole episode as the overworked and very willing VASU chaps rushed to the front end of the Tornado to look at the front wheel whilst the engine was burning out at the rear end!! :uhoh:
A timely shout of 'What about the fire at the backend!' got their priorities right! Otherwise we may all have been wearing the remains of the Tornado and a very nice Folland Gnat!! :ouch:

The nose wheels had been chocked but overan them with the excessive power and then appeared to be forced/castered to the right which prevented the inevitable from happening.....the aircrew looked shocked and who wouldn't (!) But at least they are now current with their egress drills!.....every cloud.........

Well done lads.....eventually.......:D

John Blakeley

9th Jul 2006, 14:14

Jobza,
Thanks for the clarification re the Marham accident - I knew that, sadly, one of the crew had been killed. It is good to hear that something was done for the GR4, but given Dundiggin's clarification it sounds like there may be current "electrical" failures which will still let an engine accelerate to destruction - not a design feature that figures on most aeronautical engineering courses - glad it does not happen in the new all electric cars - or perhaps someone out there knows that it does!
JB

L J R

9th Jul 2006, 15:20

After a nice day in the West counrty, I guess they will do anything not to go back to deepest darkest Norfolk!

L Peacock

9th Jul 2006, 15:51

Couple of mods came along a few years back: one to interlock the crash switch & generators and one to interlock the HP cocks and batt master.
Absolute deterimation or an unforseen fault can still result in runaway though.

I imagine the engine control design seemed like a good idea at the time.

bowly

9th Jul 2006, 16:12

Roadster,

The EPS (Emergency Power Supply) will fire in that situation and provide power for a short period. Enough time, in fact, to tighten your straps. Only then will the engines accelerate to warp factor snot!

Ghostflyer

9th Jul 2006, 16:35

The battery lasts for 15mins min. Stopped a JMC, by bleating knock it off once, when both Gennys tripped off line. Hauled ass to Lossie and shutdown 10 mins later without incident.

Its a long while since I flew the jet but wasn't the EPS for the hydraulics?

maxburner

9th Jul 2006, 16:53

Yes, the EPS as in the Ram Air Turbine is for hydraulics. The GR4 also has a one shot battery for the total electrics situation.

BEagle

9th Jul 2006, 17:49

Hmmm - a sort of mechanical overspeed detector/LP cock thingy might seem appropriate? Is there really a 'one shot' battery (thermal battery, presumably?) to cope with such failures. 'Compensating errors', I believe is the phrase?

I drive a car whose supercharger, fuel control unit, transmission and virtually everything else are controlled by software.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SLK/5.jpg

I can't even kill the ignition in 'D' - so I really, really hope that M-B's software is a bit more reliable than some. 354 bhp when you're not expecting it would seem a very bad idea!

But when you do want it......oooh yes! :E

OK, OK - yes, I know it has light red seats. Which are emphatically NOT pink!

Roadster280

9th Jul 2006, 18:10

Hmmm - a sort of mechanical overspeed detector/LP cock thingy might seem appropriate? Is there really a 'one shot' battery (thermal battery, presumably?) to cope with such failures. 'Compensating errors', I believe is the phrase?
I drive a car whose supercharger, fuel control unit, transmission and virtually everything else are controlled by software.

I can't even kill the ignition in 'D' - so I really, really hope that M-B's software is a bit more reliable than some. 354 bhp when you're not expecting it would seem a very bad idea!
But when you do want it......oooh yes! :E
OK, OK - yes, I know it has light red seats. Which are emphatically NOT pink!

BEags: - Old model SLK? Deary me. Where do you think the "Roadster" bit comes from?

Bowly - thanks!

West Coast

9th Jul 2006, 18:44

Mercedes there Beag's? What type, how many cylinders? More importantly, how fast?

BEagle

9th Jul 2006, 19:19

SLK32 AMG. V6 with supercharger = 354 bhp. 0-60 in 4.8s - top whack electronically limited to 155 mph. But will do 176 mph if you pay through the nose for the limiter to be disabled. Mine is a 2003 model - only 29 were officially imported into the UK...

Not that keen on the new SLK - the interior is like a teenager's bedroom, but with cheapo plastics. The 350 is OK-ish, but the 55 AMG is ugly and overpriced. Nice engine though. The 280 is, well......

But both the 32AMG and 55AMG are probably quicker than a Tornado from 0-100 mph!

Roadster280

9th Jul 2006, 19:36

Sorry for the thread creep, but couldnt resist.

This is a Mercedes roadster.... a 1982 280SL, to be exact.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/roadster280/280.jpg

BEagle

9th Jul 2006, 20:04

Each to his/her own, but personally I thought the previous 'pagoda' model SL was much prettier.

Not very quick though.....

Any more news on the Tornado?

maxburner

9th Jul 2006, 21:32

I really wish I knew hoe to post a phot here. I have a snap of Mrs Burner in her SLK which is just lovely..........

Green Flash

9th Jul 2006, 21:47

I wonder if the Dragon Lady will have her usual landing escort at RIAT next week? (Last year was an AMG; had pax trip in it. Wet myself. Laughing. Ferk me ..... ) It was a pre-landing FOD check, honest!

212man

9th Jul 2006, 21:55

Extraodinary reading (about the Tornado I mean, not the SLK!). Most modern FADECs have a back up power supply for just this case. Normally it's an engine driven alternator that also serves as a redundent N1/Ng signal in the event of loss of primary N1 signal(s). You cannot certificate a civilian a/c with a FADEC with this failure mode.

ARINC

9th Jul 2006, 21:56

Unfortunately, as well as the CSAS CBs, he also tripped the MECU CBs (this was in the days before the Tornado had much in the way of computers and electronics).

There but for the grace of God go I !

Often had to pull breakers in the front hatch with the A/C holding at the threshold. Crew eager to go, slight confusion in all the heat and noise = Plastic RB199.

6Z3

10th Jul 2006, 09:48

Well,

Was it a good airday or what?

Woomera

10th Jul 2006, 10:28

Tornado electrics were always interesting!

sounds like they muct have been by Lucas, the Prince of Darkness then.:rolleyes:

27mm

10th Jul 2006, 10:37

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the piccies show what looks like a Jetpipe fire to me rather than engine runaway- seem to remember these occurred sometimes if the throttle wasn't quite as HP SHUT as it should be.

Vifferpilot

10th Jul 2006, 13:01

There's a bit of thread creep here...

ISTR the EPS was inactive on the ground due to the WoW switch?

There is no RAT on the Tornado, only the EPS which has both electrical and hydraulic emergency power.

I believe 27mm has the answer - a jet pipe fire...if that was an engine winding up to destruction, surely the flames in the lst few shots would be moving horizontally due to the excess thrust (from an RB199 :} ), and the nosewheel I suspect is unrelated...if you look, it's at full (beyond full :confused: ) right deflection in the first photo, which with power to the hydraulics would mean the pilot holding full right rudder. :confused:

proudfishead

10th Jul 2006, 13:19

Anyone heard anything about the RAF Dispay C-130 that had a heavy landing at the Yeovilton Air Day this weekend? It appeared to land heavy, rotating higher than normal, bouncing from the initial touchdown then transfering all the weight to the nosewheel before repeating the process two or three times in a classic PIO style. The rumour at Yeovilton on Sunday was that the aircraft had been stressed beyond its limits and was unable to leave and may be Cat 5 pending survey. Anyone know anything different?

PerArdua

10th Jul 2006, 14:59

Vifferpilot
The Tornado ADV has a RAT!!

...but before I get shot down by the spotters I know the Tornado in the picture is a GR4 and they don't. Looks like a pretty low pressure fire so if something has let go (runaway) it was not a full engagement of combat power to allow him to escape the gnat. 27mm has got the most probable cause "as a fuel leak into the jetpipe".

PA

demobcurious

10th Jul 2006, 15:23

I believe the aircraft is back at Lyneham having been flown back as planned and fully servicable. The aircraft debrief would have told the engineers if heavy landing checks were needed - and I doubt that they were as completing them would have delayed its departure.

Apparently it was an 'arrival' ;) but as far as a Cat 5 goes - the rumour mill is running away with itself!

proudfishead

10th Jul 2006, 15:27

. . . as all good rumour mills do. :ok:

Flatus Veteranus

10th Jul 2006, 16:18

airborne_artist

10th Jul 2006, 16:30

Been done before, for real, USS Forrestal, Nov. 1963

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_1a.jpg

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_2.jpg

http://www.theaviationzone.com/art-bin/photos/c130_3.jpg

bowly

10th Jul 2006, 18:44

Now here's an option some of you may recall from yesteryear.

It hadn't been raining prior to start up, had it?! Now that really was a poor design of the intake, and (IIRC) 7 out of 8 engines were trashed by a Sqn after a landaway in the early '90s. The pool of water being sucked into the engine caused major damage! Which proves that navigators did indeed have a use, albeit for a brief time and only on the ground.;)

Vulture

10th Jul 2006, 21:21

I noticed that the Pitts Special was having trouble with the strong on-crowd wind but I was surprised when it overflew the crowd and carried out an aerobatic manoeuvre (behind the display line & over the crowd) before resuming the normal display axis. Should this not have been a 'knock it off'?

That aside, a cracking day and didn't the Blue Eagles do well? - one of their best display routines for a few years.

Navaleye

10th Jul 2006, 22:25

Now having got my slide rule out I've found that a C-130 can land on CVF and presumably can take off again. Thank for the RAF for letting us have our new F/A-130 fighters. Such an improvement on the GR7 :uhoh:

vecvechookattack

10th Jul 2006, 22:45

Fully concur. The Blue Eagles are very good. The Chinnok was also Very good.... I always think that the backwards running take off is awesome

vecvechookattack

10th Jul 2006, 23:07

In much the same way as you can get 2 Lynx on the deck of a T23.....fantastic.

SASless

10th Jul 2006, 23:49

That was 29 takeoffs and landings on the USS Forrestal....weights of the Herc was from 80,000 to 121,000 pounds.

http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp#videos

RonO

11th Jul 2006, 19:50

yeah and look at the size of the deck park

AvTech

12th Jul 2006, 18:11

As a former RB199 test bed man, I had heard all the stories about ECU runaways but never witnessed one. I did on Saturday!! Most impressive. My fishhead colleagues are still talking about the crabs Tornado ground display. One thing that surprised me was that the VASU guys did the right thing by doing a quick FOD plod, however 10 minutes later, a little man in his sweeper was still picking up blade parts and proudly putting them in a ‘poly’ bag just where a Magister and our brand new toy had taxied out. Could have been a really expensive day. The subject Tonka still here by the way.

Flatus Veteranus

14th Jul 2006, 17:54

OK - yes, I know it has light red seats. Which are emphatically NOT pink!

Just as well the car isn't red, BEagle. You know the old saw - "big red car, small white willy!" ;)

insty66

14th Jul 2006, 18:22

crabs Tornado ground display

Apparently it was so good it's been repeated!:eek: :eek:

mitten

15th Jul 2006, 23:44

Bit confused at the duplicitous nature of this thread.... on the Tornado bit.

I was VERY close to it.... pilot stood up, engine spooled up, aircraft lept forward, spool up - afterburner - loud POP and turbine blades spat out of the back....fire a result.

All a bit expensive I suspect...glad that my taxes are going to good use again :-))

The Rocket

17th Jul 2006, 21:04

Runaways on the Tornado are not as uncommon as you may think.

I personally have had it happen to me on start up, on two seperate occasions. Both times the DECU had failed and as soon as the engine reached normal idling speed, the RPM rapidly shot up with the throttles at idle. (In excess of 7% per second if I'm not mistaken?) If caught quickly, the engine can still be shut down, as I was able to do on both occasions, but if the RPM is allowed to rise too high, it's curtains for that particular ECU!! Having spoken to the engine men about it, many of them had had similar things happen to them.

A hazy memory tells me that they were designed to fail that way in the event of a total power failure, in order to give a final burst of thrust. Hopefully with which you would be able to gain some vital altitude, and point the jet in a safe direction before taking your Martin Baker taxi. Could be wrong, but it does make some sense.

Also, and I'm sure L Peacock will correct me if I'm wrong, I was under the impression that the mod to the DECU also had it hardwired to the battery, with power always available to the vital parts of the board:confused: