Belgian F-16 Fleet Grounded - Engine Problems
Thread Starter
Belgian F-16 Fleet Grounded - Engine Problems
Netherlands covering QRA for them.
Belgium’s Hard-Worked F-16 Fighter Jet Fleet Has Just Been Grounded (thedrive.com)
Belgium’s Hard-Worked F-16 Fighter Jet Fleet Has Just Been Grounded (thedrive.com)
I was just about to post another link, as far as I'm aware, the KLU hasn't got a lot of F-16 operational, about three squadrons covering every considered form of tactical role. I don't want to sound like a typical jingo type, but doesn't this expose the fair-weather attitude of western democracies (US excepted) to any serious defence considerations? There'll be those who'll say thank god for the EU and others who'll, more rightly say in my opinion, thank god for NATO. But which ever way you slice the cake, this should not happen, Belgium, albeit a small country with allies surrounding it, has been left without a single air defence, ground attack, strike or reconnaissance fighter!
FB
FB
I was just about to post another link, as far as I'm aware, the KLU hasn't got a lot of F-16 operational, about three squadrons covering every considered form of tactical role. I don't want to sound like a typical jingo type, but doesn't this expose the fair-weather attitude of western democracies (US excepted) to any serious defence considerations? There'll be those who'll say thank god for the EU and others who'll, more rightly say in my opinion, thank god for NATO. But which ever way you slice the cake, this should not happen, Belgium, albeit a small country with allies surrounding it, has been left without a single air defence, ground attack, strike or reconnaissance fighter!
FB
FB
FB
Salute!
It may not be reliance on the plane but the engine. Even then, some batches do not have defective blades or control units, but maybe wear and tear on the nozzles and other components.
No matter how many tests and simulations and models, once a plane or engine gets to the field we always find some glitches. Most are minor, very, very few are major.
The first F-35 loss here at Eglin was the engine blades not correctly seated in the surrounding shroud of the new motor, and that sucker is a beast. So the concept was for the rotating blades to make their own grooves. Well, no problems with a few dozen engines during test, but then we have a few hundred! Guess what? So improved engine inspections and such have resulted in no more engine failures of that type.
.. Gums sends...
It may not be reliance on the plane but the engine. Even then, some batches do not have defective blades or control units, but maybe wear and tear on the nozzles and other components.
No matter how many tests and simulations and models, once a plane or engine gets to the field we always find some glitches. Most are minor, very, very few are major.
The first F-35 loss here at Eglin was the engine blades not correctly seated in the surrounding shroud of the new motor, and that sucker is a beast. So the concept was for the rotating blades to make their own grooves. Well, no problems with a few dozen engines during test, but then we have a few hundred! Guess what? So improved engine inspections and such have resulted in no more engine failures of that type.
.. Gums sends...
For me it highlights the issue of reliance on a single type for the role. Lose 1 due to a fleet wide tech issue - lose them all
Salute!
It may not be reliance on the plane but the engine. Even then, some batches do not have defective blades or control units, but maybe wear and tear on the nozzles and other components.
No matter how many tests and simulations and models, once a plane or engine gets to the field we always find some glitches. Most are minor, very, very few are major.
The first F-35 loss here at Eglin was the engine blades not correctly seated in the surrounding shroud of the new motor, and that sucker is a beast. So the concept was for the rotating blades to make their own grooves. Well, no problems with a few dozen engines during test, but then we have a few hundred! Guess what? So improved engine inspections and such have resulted in no more engine failures of that type.
.. Gums sends...
It may not be reliance on the plane but the engine. Even then, some batches do not have defective blades or control units, but maybe wear and tear on the nozzles and other components.
No matter how many tests and simulations and models, once a plane or engine gets to the field we always find some glitches. Most are minor, very, very few are major.
The first F-35 loss here at Eglin was the engine blades not correctly seated in the surrounding shroud of the new motor, and that sucker is a beast. So the concept was for the rotating blades to make their own grooves. Well, no problems with a few dozen engines during test, but then we have a few hundred! Guess what? So improved engine inspections and such have resulted in no more engine failures of that type.
.. Gums sends...
The RAF had this very problem with the Armstrong Siddley Sapphire engines in the Gloster Javelin back in the 1960s. A sudden drop in temperature when flying through heavy cumulus, the cold caused the engine casing to shrink with the sharp drop in degrees to the extent that it came into contact with the compressor blades with inevitable results. They called it centre-line closure. The remedy, a typical British economic approach, and it worked! They coated the blade tips with an abrasive, this naturally sanded down a groove into the casing when a sudden drop in pressure/temperature was encountered.
FB
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Next to Ross and Demelza
Age: 53
Posts: 1,235
Received 52 Likes
on
21 Posts
The problem is, what can you do if you can only afford to operate one type of aircraft?
So ,i guess the BBMF are ready in case of `Typhoon problems...!
