UK F-35B Lost
My question is surely the pilot would have had multiple indications ("do you see it, do you hear it, do you feel it?" as instructors will say) that the jet was not developing enough power to take off?
Bet he flew a few profiles off land first. Please tell us you are involved with the JSF programme? Your statement makes me think not. Let us not confuse the Daily Telegraph journo reading this.
Last edited by Cat Techie; 29th Nov 2021 at 23:15.
Was not on a RAF airfield. I doubt that video was leaked by anyone from the RAF. Ships crew released that. The Captain has a problem with his company. I work for a civvy company that has good leaders and doesn't have the problem of a rogue person throwing rubbish out. It also has a secure paperwork proceedure for removal of blanks in a tech log. From a lesson learned I wager. More problems that the RAF or RN have as well! Faye Turney's I Phone is alive and well.
Perhaps, but worth a bloody good try if you know you have a fundamental loss of thrust and that you’ll be ejecting if you can’t stop!
The engine was fodded just after he started to roll. Just as the infamous Vulcan eat the sillica gel bag episode happened. Jet was rolling before intake suction release the "ate" item that should not have been there. The pilot had no chance to work out the failure and stop. Wonder if the service enquiry will try the "Sully Sim" save the aircraft sketch?
Reason I ask is that it is decelerating as it goes up the ramp (whether due to a loss of speed due to the incline, or braking/reduced power).
And the noise doesn't decrease or change in pitch which suggests the throttle wasn't suddenly closed.
Could be a multiplicity of factors in play.
Although they're heavily trained not to - pilot startles and doesn't react quickly enough to insufficient power?
*If* it's an ingested blank, it moves suddenly during take off roll and degrades thrust?
Will be a very interesting accident report.
Not blaming the driver - just trying to understand the possibilities.
And the noise doesn't decrease or change in pitch which suggests the throttle wasn't suddenly closed.
Could be a multiplicity of factors in play.
Although they're heavily trained not to - pilot startles and doesn't react quickly enough to insufficient power?
*If* it's an ingested blank, it moves suddenly during take off roll and degrades thrust?
Will be a very interesting accident report.
Not blaming the driver - just trying to understand the possibilities.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
In the first part of this compilation video the A4G pilot is standing on the brakes hoping to stop with FLYCO calling 'EJECT' which he does at the end to be rescued OK. Similarly we hear the pilot in the second video explaining what has happened so he is rescued OK with no ejection. It was calculated that IF he had ejected as the aircraft was DIVING down then he would not have survived. First cold cat (last catapult of an A4G) caused by cat crew in a hurry not carrying out all check procedures. Second cold cat cause never discovered with many replication attempts (not with an aircraft attached of course).
RAN Skyhawk A4Gs 885 & 889 Cold Catapult Ejections - 2nd 'not quite' - Both Pilots OK - Compilation
RAN Skyhawk A4Gs 885 & 889 Cold Catapult Ejections - 2nd 'not quite' - Both Pilots OK - Compilation
In the first part of this compilation video the A4G pilot is standing on the brakes hoping to stop with FLYCO calling 'EJECT' which he does at the end to be rescued OK. Similarly we hear the pilot in the second video explaining what has happened so he is rescued OK with no ejection. It was calculated that IF he had ejected as the aircraft was DIVING down then he would not have survived. First cold cat (last catapult of an A4G) caused by cat crew in a hurry not carrying out all check procedures. Second cold cat cause never discovered with many replication attempts (not with an aircraft attached of course).
RAN Skyhawk A4Gs 885 & 889 Cold Catapult Ejections - 2nd 'not quite' - Both Pilots OK - Compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4pBkzGdmYE
RAN Skyhawk A4Gs 885 & 889 Cold Catapult Ejections - 2nd 'not quite' - Both Pilots OK - Compilation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4pBkzGdmYE
It seems to me from the video that the aircraft is initially accelerating, but just after entering the ramp it starts to slow, possibly with brakes applied, but too late to stop.
Bu**er the £100M. The pilot is safe. And well done Martin-Baker who, 3 years ago in court, were accused by MoD and the HSE of not understanding how their designs work. This incident made it 7662 aircrew and families who disagree.
The Harrier required a takeoff distance calculation - brakes off to ramp, to accommodate differing mass.
Does the F-35 require a similar calculation; if so, is the distance to the start of ramp or top of ramp (cf Harrier incident with miscalculated distance).
Does the F-35 require a similar calculation; if so, is the distance to the start of ramp or top of ramp (cf Harrier incident with miscalculated distance).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: england- up north (where it's grim)
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing I have noticed and this is only from the original video clip posted on Twitter. The Nozzle position seems to move from 1/2 down at the start, to fully rear on the roll, then to full down as it goes up the ramp. Is this normal for it to change positions on a take off roll, or is this potentially due to the loss of thrust?
Ditto: MB did their stuff - c10secs from rockets to splash with full canopy deployed.
