Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Notice those nozzles....?

Looks like one was pushing and one wasn't.

Shrug

TEG

F-16.net Sponsor

That was one of the first things I noticed. The port engine looks like it was shut down before the jet crashed. Also it seems to have been reported as both a D model and an F model, but you can tell by the fuel vent and antenna arrangement on the vertical stab that that is an F model. Supers have 4 bulges and Legacy jets only have 3.

edited for clearification of antenna location.

So, I understand that the pilots came down close enough to the impact point to apologize to the residents before being hauled off in an ambulance. Does that mean that the ejected near the last second?

Allegedly, the crew dumped nearly all fuel just before impact, thus reducing damage done on the ground. My liberal newspaper, however, suspects that this was a 'malfunction' Rolling Eyes

Either way, I'm glad nobody's dead Wink

southernphantom wrote:

Allegedly, the crew dumped nearly all fuel just before impact, thus reducing damage done on the ground. My liberal newspaper, however, suspects that this was a 'malfunction' Rolling Eyes

Either way, I'm glad nobody's dead Wink

Their next step will probably be to blame the Naval aviators for "doing dangerous maneuvers in residential area" (that was built in the flight path of the established NAS Oceana despite strong objections from the Navy)

There was an eye-witness on the news that said he saw the right wing on fire as it was going down.

Well that leaves somthing like a electrical short or the like. There isnt anything in the wings that i know off that would readily catch fire, other then the fuel.

navy_airframer wrote:

Well that leaves somthing like a electrical short or the like. There isnt anything in the wings that i know off that would readily catch fire, other then the fuel.

Could a catastrophic failure of the right engine damaged the fuel tank and ignite it?

A catastrophic failure of an engine can destroy ANYTHING that is in it's path, relative to a radial direction from the failure.

Since the engines of the Hornet are situated well aft of most the aircraft's fuel supply, I would suspect an engine feed line, external engine plumbing, or hydraulic lines running to the horizontal or vertical stabs.

They don't use the term 'Catastrophic' for nothing; it is typically the end of the motor producing ANY power, and results in tremendous damage to any other systems/structures situated around the engine.

So IF (we don't know yet as the USN hasn't said) one of the F404s in that Hornet had a catastrophic failure, it may have damaged any number of systems besides its self. The opposite engine may have been damaged enough to limit it's own power, if not making it eventually fail due to fuel, oil or impact damage. The failed engines fuel supply (or other fuel lines) may have been damaged causing a fire, but this too can be caused by oil and/or hydraulic fluid leaking from damaged lines. The heat/internal combustion from the engine can ignite combustible fuel sources being leaked through or over it. There is no need for a 'spark' when you scatter a running jet engine, lots of hot parts, fire and sparks from the flying shrapnel.

At this point it's all highly speculative, but points to an 'uncontaminated' or 'catastrophic' failure of one engine leading to partial loss of control or loss of thrust in the opposite engine resulting in an eventual impact.

I mention loss of control since the aircraft maintained it's heading from takeoff without any effort to return to the field versus flying straight ahead towards the openness of the coast.

All my Two Cents

so take it for what it's worth. I'm sure the USN's official mishap report will shed many more details on the incident.

One thing for certain, it's a true miracle that neither pilot was seriously injured nor were any of the persons on the ground near the impact site. Always the most important point of any investigation is the lack of causalities. I'd always like to learn our lessons without someone loosing their life to teach it.

Keep 'em flyin' (Safely!) Thumb

TEG

This aircraft was a Super Hornet not a baby Hornet. It has been misreported in a number of places. Both types of Hornets have vent tanks in the vert stabs so that could be a fuel source along with the hyd pumps, AMADs and the engines themselfs.

Count,

As for the engine exploding and damaging a wing tank is highly unlikely. The fan face is well behind the trailing edge of the wing structure not including the TEF. About 12 to 18 inches or so.

X2 TEG. Pure miracle no one was killed.

IMHO that is a baby, not a Super Hornet. For the answer, look at the antenna of the vertical tails.

In the "baby" hornet, the sequence from the top of the tail going down is Short - Short - Long:

In the Super Hornet the sequence is Longest - Long - Long:

Now look again at the photo from above and you will see Short - Short - Long:

I am mistaken and I should know better because i work on both. Good eye Spud.

That picture of the super is a VX-9 jet. It has transfered to a fleet squadron. Nice to see some of our test jets.

Spud's da shiz! Wink

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F/A-18D crash - Virginia Beach appartments