Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

USMC F-35B Crash - 17 Sep 23

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

USMC F-35B Crash - 17 Sep 23

Old 30th Sep 2023, 09:23
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 673
Received 359 Likes on 121 Posts
Originally Posted by munnst
What about the EE Lightning? Modern'ish.
Every aircraft is modern and sophisticated at the time it enters service.
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2023, 10:10
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,755
Received 57 Likes on 28 Posts
I don't think that going back through aviation history and pointing to high loss rates of then-advanced new types in their early years of service is a very good way of looking at this, especially not if we are going to go back as far as the Harrier or the Lightning! One would like to think we had learned things about aircraft design and flight safety in that time, not to mention changes in societal expectations and budgetary provision. The F35 accident rate compares favourably with 4th gen US aircraft, which is probably as fair a comparison as can be made in this way.

I wonder if perceptions in Europe have become skewed by the quite extraordinary safety record of the Eurofighter, and whether comparisons between it and the F35 are unfair: it could be argued that European budgetary constraints have pushed loss aversion to an excessive level, driving inflexibility and reducing combat readiness, and that Europeans should be grateful the US is still prepared to push boundaries in the way it designs, maintains and operates combat aircraft. I'm not going to come down on either side of that fence: my mind is not made up, but there seems to me the basis of an argument there.
Easy Street is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2023, 15:47
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,015
Received 235 Likes on 139 Posts
I think itís inevitable that the Typhoon will have a better record. Itís a conventional type operating from runways. The 35 is a complex VSTOL type, with some accidents from carriers.
212man is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 16th Oct 2023, 13:10
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 350/3 Compton
Age: 75
Posts: 710
Received 179 Likes on 45 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
I think itís inevitable that the Typhoon will have a better record. Itís a conventional type operating from runways. The 35 is a complex VSTOL type, with some accidents from carriers.
The Typhoon also has twice as many engines!

Mog
Mogwi is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Mogwi:
Old 16th Oct 2023, 13:32
  #145 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,237
Received 897 Likes on 452 Posts
I don’t believe any of the F-35 crashes were due to engine failure (I am assuming the QE intake blank accident would have had the same result).

https://www.f-16.net/aircraft-databa...and-accidents/
ORAC is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 16th Oct 2023, 15:02
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 2,307
Received 267 Likes on 63 Posts
1 vs 2

Interestingly I read a USAF study a few years back comparing engine failure rates leading to aircraft loss from the F15 vs the F16 fleet. It might surprise you to realise that the F15 had a higher rate of losses due to engine failure.

The reason?

Twice as many engines means double the odds of a failure. Since FJs tend to have their engines mounted side by side, one failing spectacularly is likely to take the other one with it or cause additional problems leading to aircraft loss.

So, whilst a pilot may feel safer having a second engine, they should actually trust the statistics and think of themselves as safer in a single engine jet.

Disclaimer: may not be true of every fleet and I would not use it as a legal defence.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 15:13
  #147 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,237
Received 897 Likes on 452 Posts
Reference the above.

The Fighter Engine Debate – More is not Better
Billie Flynn | 8 Sep 2021
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fight...r-billie-flynn
ORAC is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 16th Oct 2023, 16:59
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes on 40 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Reference the above.

The Fighter Engine Debate Ė More is not Better
Billie Flynn | 8 Sep 2021
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fight...r-billie-flynn
ALSO FWIW same article Billie Flynn BLOG:
The Fighter Engine Debate Ė More is not Better 08 Sep 2021
https://billieflynn.com/the-fighter-...is-not-better/
SpazSinbad is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 18:34
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
...the F15 had a higher rate of losses due to engine failure.
This is a somewhat non-argument. Yes, you have double the odds of engine failure, but what's not included is the number of times having two engines prevented the loss of the actual aircraft.

I've had catastrophic engine failure in an F-100, lost the aircraft....and catastrophic engine failure in F-4s twice, recovered both aircraft.

(Twice the odds of engine failure seems logically reasonable, but twice the odds of losing the airframe certainly does not follow.)
OK465 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 18:48
  #150 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 16,237
Received 897 Likes on 452 Posts
I believe the figures show that the cost of buying, maintaining and running two engines for the life of an aircraft (which is therefore heavier and uses more fuel anyway), rather than a single engined aircraft far exceeds the marginal cost of the few additional airframes lost.

That also factors in the few additional aircrew lost - though that won’t be many with modern seats.

It does explain the navy preference for a two engines aircraft where long flights over water with limited rescue assets is a factor - just not an option for a STOVL aircraft. Then again the USN operated A-4 and A-7, so it’s a preference rather than a policy.
ORAC is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 19:00
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 413
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
It does explain the navy preference for a two engines aircraft where long flights over water with limited rescue assets is a factor - just not an option for a STOVL aircraft.
V-22 Osprey (CMV-22B) would seem to be an exception.
EXDAC is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 19:28
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 79
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
When you start adding expensive Auto-GCAS, auto-ejection systems, etc., I'm not sure service life costs due to engine config are that high of a priority. Auto-GCAS function being to save the aircraft first and the pilot as an afterthought...$100 mill (or 80) not being chump change.

With respect to F-16 v F-15 accident rates due to engine failure, the F-16 has one big advantage over most (probably all) other single-engine aircraft. A flame out landing attempt is much more likely to be successful than any other aircraft in the inventory, given equal starting conditions. If it's possible at all to do it, it is the easiest aircraft to safely land engine-out under a variety of conditions and offers more flexibility in energy management options than any other single engine fighter I flew, all of which suggested ejection as a preferable alternative. (Difference between an engine failure statistic and an engine fail/hull loss statistic)

edit: T-6 may be just as easy to land engine out

Last edited by OK465; 16th Oct 2023 at 19:42. Reason: addition
OK465 is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 20:57
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 80
Posts: 1,589
Received 27 Likes on 10 Posts
Salute!

Some good points here from folks that actually flew single and dual engine fast movers.

I favor the single engine lights because I would rather have more gas and burn less of it that I did in my original jet, that used J-57's and had a low lost rate for reasons other than motor failure. I thot the 106 had the best single engine loss rate in its early years, but have to check. The A-7D I flew had some engine problems early on, and then became a stalwart.

The Viper was first USAF fighter that I recall having an approved and tested flameout procedure after the 106 and 102. We saw it do good deadstick landings several times in the time I was at Hill in the early years ( 1979 - 1984 ), and one or two were not the classic circling pattern but straight ins. There's a few videos on the 'net to provide examples.

Gums sends...
gums is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 20:57
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,663
Received 61 Likes on 29 Posts
Originally Posted by ORAC
Then again the USN operated A-4 and A-7, so itís a preference rather than a policy.
And the F-8
GeeRam is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 20:59
  #155 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,743
Received 701 Likes on 207 Posts
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
Every aircraft is modern and sophisticated at the time it enters service.
Not if built by the pommes
fdr is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 21:57
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 673
Received 359 Likes on 121 Posts
Originally Posted by fdr
Not if built by the pommes
Potatoes?
Video Mixdown is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2023, 23:26
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,650
Received 202 Likes on 76 Posts
Originally Posted by Video Mixdown
Potatoes?
Or rather, apples?
BEagle is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2023, 01:01
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,688
Received 299 Likes on 153 Posts
We saw it do good deadstick landings several times
A RAAF chap swallowed a bird at 1,500/420kt after take off in a Mirage III and dead sticked it into a disused airstrip, undamaged and towed by road back to base. Said to have got his knuckles rapped for not using the seat.
megan is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.