Forum: F-22A Raptor

SR-71 crews have ejected at altitude and survived. Probably because the wind blast wasn't as bad, cause of the thin air. Wonder just how fast he was going near the deck?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Damn.

According to the report the pilot initiated ejection at 3,900 feet AGL, 765 KEAS, Mach 1.3. The ejection systems functioned properly but suffered structural damage from the wind blast. The arm and leg restraints deployed but weren't able to prevent limb flail at those high speeds.

Here's a link to the AIB report. Kind of surprised it's released with this much detail.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... error.html

To the stated test profile: inverted dive at x g's, then roll and level off. Too little safety margin when the pilot inputs come delayed. Too bad Sad

Wouldn't it be easier to achieve the required g's at the specified speed by doing it in the horizontal plane (or downward spiral to avoid speed bleed-off when pulling hard). This way it should be able to avoid a steep flight path towards the ground.

I do not understand why there is an YF-22 (if I'm not mistaken) on the title page - should not have been too complicated to find a F-22 picture.

Maks,
Right about being safer to do the maneuver in a horizontal plane (wind up turn) or shallow spiral, but the split-S is more efficent in reaching and maintaining test conditions (altitude, speed, g) with minimum fuel usage. Of course, hindsight says it was false economy in this specific case. The Split-S as attempted was safe until Mr. Cooley was almost incapacitated. A much better way to do the maneuver is to dive into the test point (erect). With this method, the airplane is climbing at the end of the manueuver rather than plummeting earthward at very high speeds. Safety review of the test plan should have caught this problem and considered a dive to the point instead. Hindsight again.

I have been in the position of Lead Load Engineer (crash report terminology) in similar flight tests many hundreds of times, so I have a good idea of what was going on in test control during the crash event. In my opinion, the test control room crew must bear at least some contributing responsibility for the crash. Everyone in the room has the duty and authority to call "knock it off" or "terminate" at any time. At that call, the pilot is supposed to terminate the test maneuver, reduce power, and establish a positive rate of climb immediately, no questions asked. When the test crew saw the altitude go below previous results, they should have made the call immediately. Would it have prevented the crash? Nobody knows, since the pilot may not have been able to respond in time.

When Mr. Cooley realized he was in trouble he cut power to idle. He should also have extended the speedbrakes.

Quote:

According to the report the pilot initiated ejection at 3,900 feet AGL, 765 KEAS, Mach 1.3. The ejection systems functioned properly but suffered structural damage from the wind blast. The arm and leg restraints deployed but weren't able to prevent limb flail at those high speeds.

Am I reading this right that his Raptor was heading toward the desert in
a steep dive at almost 1,000 mph!? What a shame. He died a very
violent death and was a good man. Rest in Peace Mr. Cooley.

Quote:

In my opinion, the test control room crew must bear at least some contributing responsibility for the crash.

WOW.

IMO as a dumb civilian: don't they first rehearse the manoeuvres in the simulator, before they try them in the real plane?
Esp when fuel is expensive nowadays?

Perhaps, but you only get measurements in the real world. Meaning it doesn't work like, sim, then deploy. You have to test it first, actually fly it.

Gamera,
Right, they do rehearse the maneuvers in the sim. That is fully explained in the crash report. As Tinito says, the sim cannot give the structural load and stress results they needed from this test, but it does indeed give an excellent prediction of airplane response - speed, altitude, pitch, roll, yaw, etc. Most importantly in this case, the sim cannot predict pilot incapacitation.

] Most importantly in this case, the sim cannot predict pilot incapacitation.

Understood.

To quote an ancient Chinese proverb, "Life s_cks and sh_t happens." 8(

I found the serial number of the crashed F-22. It is 91-4008 and it was printed on the title page of the accident report. I am surprised nobody noticed it as why should we take note of it when AFM puts it in their monthly magazine?

(Off-Topic Alert)

] I am surprised nobody noticed it as why should we take note of it when AFM puts it in their monthly magazine?

Before the official accident reports come out, AFM partly relies on fellow aviation fans to contribute the serial numbers of accident aircraft, so it can print them in next month's issue.

Guess who's one of these IMO lifeless volunteers to AFM, WRT military aviation accidents in Northeast Asia?

(To the moderators of this forum: Shhhh.)

Tinito_16 wrote:

Perhaps, but you only get measurements in the real world. Meaning it doesn't work like, sim, then deploy. You have to test it first, actually fly it.

This is probably not what he meant.

There have been pilots to survive mach 1+ ejections. However, the only ones I know of have been over water. The parachutes actually hold up surprisingly well during these ejections, sometimes losing 1 or 2 panels.

In Cool's case, I imagine he was just too low for full chute deployment. If he was inverted, that would make things even worse.

http://www.christianfighterpilot.com/ar ... f22aib.pdf

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Edwards F-22 crashes