Another "praise the Raptor" article

[Rasczak]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9606/29/spectacular.landing/f16pilot.mov

f-16 Deadstick

 

[HeyJoe]

Perhaps this all transpired before Squid's time, but doesn't mean it isn't true. The incident in the 80s was a big deal because Navy was then flying the F-16N and "dead sticking" aircraft wasn't SOP yet when an F-16 pilot did it sucessfully, we had to decide what to put out offcially as Navy SOP. After reviewing all sides of issue, we got a first person story from the pilot and ran the story in Approach (Squid can read it for himself and decide if that qualifies as S___ and third person account). As for USAF, they maintain it is a viable option. It's not for amateurs or novices and nobody will blame the pilot for taking the other option. Here's a more recent incident and it occured at night no less: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/combatAir/f16/semper_viper/viper00.html

 

[jarhead]

... Again, the story I heard was that the RAT was never flight tested as the only source of hydraulic power at approach speeds at low altitude. Therefore no one "knew" how it would react. Similar analog DEL in the hornet. ...

i thought it was MECH that was never flight tested in the hornet.

the F-22 is badass ... we'll see with the F-35. performance wise, i'm afraid the AF version of the F-35 will be superior to the Navy's version, and both of those versions will be vastly superior to the Marine Corps version.

 

[Huggy Bear]

http://www.f-16.net/news_article2199.html

It's great that the engine mx takes about 1/3 the time on an Eagle. Too bad it's the generator breaking, or the canopy, or the computer...

Yeah, and boeing advertises 1 hour engine changes on the hornet.

 

[Ace_Austin]

Personally I'd rather have two engines then one. As for dead sticking a jet onto the boat, I haven't heard nearly the number of stories I'm sure you guys have.. but I do remember reading ( I think in "Feet Wet") that during the Cold War while flying in the Med an F-8 had some sort of fuel transfer problem and couldn't get the fuel out of the storage tanks to the tanks the engine fed from. As a result the pilot actually flamed out while in the groove and still managed to get a wire.

 

[Single Seat]

Yeah, and boeing advertises 1 hour engine changes on the hornet.

A Marine crew did one in 24 minutes. Just to prove it was possible.

 

[Lawman]

A Marine crew did one in 24 minutes. Just to prove it was possible.

Yeah but did anybody get in and fly it right after they finished the job.

 

[PropStop]

Yeah but did anybody get in and fly it right after they finished the job.

I wouldn't want to be the CDI who signed that off.

 

[Single Seat]

Yeah but did anybody get in and fly it right after they finished the job.

Yes, would kind of negate the point of attempt don't cha think?

 

[Catmando]

... but I do remember reading ( I think in "Feet Wet") that during the Cold War while flying in the Med an F-8 had some sort of fuel transfer problem and couldn't get the fuel out of the storage tanks to the tanks the engine fed from. As a result the pilot actually flamed out while in the groove and still managed to get a wire.

Sounds like some typical F-8 story . . . but dubitable as usual.

Even with sunny skies and smooth seas, the F-8 had a most difficult time avoiding the ramp with its J-57 running perfectlly.
But with an engine failure, even in close, it would be lucky to make the spud locker.

 

[Squid]

Perhaps this all transpired before Squid's time, but doesn't mean it isn't true.

words

(Squid can read it for himself and decide if that qualifies as S___ and third person account).

never said it didn't. only that i heard it from someone who heard it from someone who.... you get it. don't care enough to verify, my SA bubble isn't that big at the moment. currently getting my brain scrambled working radar, staying upright and airborne.

@ jarhead: it may be MECH too, but I'm sure at least one thing that was never tested was analog DEL. i hope to not be the first for either.

 

[Purdue]

F-22 Can't cross the Dateline?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/27/f-22-raptors-systems-crash-mid-flight-over-pacific/
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6225

But while the simulated war games were a somewhat easy feat for the Raptor, something more mundane was able to cripple six aircraft on a 12 to 15 hours flight from Hawaii to Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The U.S. Air Force's mighty Raptor was felled by the International Date Line (IDL).

When the group of Raptors crossed over the IDL, multiple computer systems crashed on the planes. Everything from fuel subsystems, to navigation and partial communications were completely taken offline. Numerous attempts were made to "reboot" the systems to no avail.

Luckily for the Raptors, there were no weather issues that day so visibility was not a problem. Also, the Raptors had their refueling tankers as guide dogs to "carry" them back to safety. "They needed help. Had they gotten separated from their tankers or had the weather been bad, they had no attitude reference. They had no communications or navigation," said Retired Air Force Major General Don Shepperd. "They would have turned around and probably could have found the Hawaiian Islands. But if the weather had been bad on approach, there could have been real trouble.”

Very Interesting... I guess the Raptor can only fly from San Diego to Okinawa by going East?

 

[Whalebite]

Its a common misconception that the raptor flies. It merely stays in place as the earth revolves around it.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Isn't the bigger problem here that they were 100% reliant on GPS to navigate, or is that normal?

 

[BOMBSonHAWKEYES]

Isn't the bigger problem here that they were 100% reliant on GPS to navigate, or is that normal?

Well you tell me. How many tacans/vors are floating around in the middle of the ocean? Or were you refering to the sextant/astrolabe method?