Canadian Concern About Purchase of Single Engine F-35

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Sharkey

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 27 Oct 2006, 13:18

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 05:18

archeman wrote:A secret new THREE ENGINE Canadian fighter aircraft spotted !!!
The only way to be safe in the vast northern climes insiders say.......

...

Thanks for posting that photo, made me go back in time a bit :)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 10949
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 05:56

All the single engine F-35 recoveries will be successful - mark my words. :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 06:07

maus92 wrote:
neurotech wrote:
Several crashes have occurred as a result of difficulty with singe-engine handling in the F/A-18.


But not the two you mentioned - can you provide some examples? Almost all single engine recoveries are successful. There are exceptions, but overall the Hornet is a very safe aircraft to operate with one engine inop.

I wouldn't say "very safe" on one engine. It requires training and skill to keep the jet in the air on one engine. Flight controls can become degraded on one engine. Also, especially on take-off with the gear down, the jet may not be able to climb without jettisoning ordinance and tanks.

On 23 July 2010, A CF-18 pilot lost an engine at low altitude and crashed, but that was a practice demonstration flight. performing a low pass. At least one other CF-18 mishap was engine related.

21 June 1994, A F/A-18 was lost after a catastrophic engine failure damaged the hydraulics. Pilot ejected safely.

Mar 26, 2004, a F/A-18 went off the veered off the runway, after an apparent engine malfunction, the jet was destroyed. This was at Raleigh-Durham IAP, NC

I was trying to find the exact details of others, but there have been a few more that involved loss of an engine and subsequent Class A/B mishap-level damage during landing, not just the engine. Some of these jets were repaired afterwards.

My point is that a F/A-18 with two engines doesn't mean its always going to be able to land with one engine inoperative. Conversely, Several F-16s have landed with one engine out, and they only have one engine.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 06:24

spazsinbad wrote:All the single engine F-35 recoveries will be successful - mark my words. :D

Didn't they have a mishap in a F-16 because some brainiac designed the cable for the arrestor hook and the brakes to go through same connector, that failed?

I remember my front-seater jokingly saying "When in doubt, go for a field arrested recovery because its really embarrassing if a Navy pilot goes off the end of a 7000 ft runway."
Last edited by neurotech on 21 Sep 2012, 06:42, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hb_pencil

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 755
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2011, 21:50

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 06:27

Basically there has been only one CF-18 crash due to an engine mishap and that was the 2010 incident. I think up until 1999 the whole single engine vs twin had some merit, but now its really becoming less and less relevant.
Last edited by hb_pencil on 21 Sep 2012, 16:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 10949
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 06:36

Well I don't know anything about F-16s but know about dribbling off the end of our 6,000 foot RW 26 at NAS Nowra with our only buddy refuel tank on the centreline (with two large drops under either wing). I was being silly on a hot windless afternoon, delaying braking to 'thoughfully' allow others streaming behind to have adequate separation. Never again. Just as I got to the edge of the concrete one tyre popped and the main wheels plopped onto the dirt. My Senior Pilot (XO) was watching from the hangar and was apoplectic that I may have damaged the one and only buddy refuel tank. Because that was all that was on his mind when he barrelled up - telling me to walk the length of the runway back to the hangar (I had shut down the engine losing everything powered by engine with no battery for radio) while the A4G was towed back eventually - none the worse for wear - except blown tyre. Missed it by that much. By the time I got back our SP and everyone else had knocked off work so I escaped the usual drubbing by all and sundry. :D

BTW 6,000 feet was the minimum acceptable NATOPS runway length at that time for the A-4 series. And yes I could have taken a long field arrest at slow speed but had judged I could stop before the end. I was wrong.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 07:19

We had 7000 ft of Runway for the F/A-18C/D/F jets. That is short enough to cause problems if the pilot lands high or doesn't brake hard enough, or has an anti-skid failure. The anti-skid failure has caused a few embarrassing mishaps as well. We had one incident where the brakes "felt weird" on a F/A-18C during landing, and it turned out that the anti-skid cable was damaged, but because the jet came straight off the carrier, it hadn't landed on a runway in months. The pilot used the tailhook on the next approach without any further difficulties. The defacto rule we worked with was that if you don't land on your first approach, and your bingo fuel, the second one is an arrested landing. This saved at least one pilot from a mishap.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 10949
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 07:33

Then there is always the unintended (quite likely night) short field arrest or if landing long and landing beyond the short field gear - the long field gear - arrest. Why? Because bingoing from nearby carrier the pilot has forgotten to raise de hook - especially bad because that is a circuit check but again aircraft (A4G) might recover at night to bingo field (NAS Nowra) via a GCA or TACAN straight in approach. Anyhoo that happened at least once. But not me Chief. :D

Also for A-4G the tyre pressures were double for carrier work compared to land runways. So bingoing or disembarking was a serious issue if the reduced braking effectiveness was forgotten due to higher tyre pressures. Also for A4G one had to remember to ARM the Spoilers which were not used aboard. So many a returning A4G pilot has been trundling down the runway - no spoilers - reducing brake effectiveness with higher tyre pressures - you know the rest. But HEY not me Chief! :D
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1642
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post21 Sep 2012, 14:55

neurotech wrote:
My point is that a F/A-18 with two engines doesn't mean its always going to be able to land with one engine inoperative. Conversely, Several F-16s have landed with one engine out, and they only have one engine.


I do agree with you that having 2 engines doesn't always mean you will be able to recover with one shut down (or both following a catastrophic event,) but for the most part, it does. The Hornet should be able to climb after takeoff after the loss of an engine - if nothing else bad happens. In a single engine aircraft, this scenario will result in a bad day. There have been some F-16s that have deadsticked in successfully, there was one over the Midwest somewhere that was cruising at 40K, another at E-City. Excellent airmanship no doubt is required anytime you lose an engine, but one engine operating is better than none IMO.

In another Canadian article, CF-18s had to shut down an engine 67 times due to birdstrikes. http://o.canada.com/2012/09/20/cf-18-en ... ince-1988/ Sometimes you are lucky and the engine still produces power after a strike, but they have lost a few (single engine) Hawks due to birdstirkes.

From another version of the same article that started this thread:

"Critics of the Harper government’s plan to purchase the F-35 stealth fighter have long maintained that a dual-engine fighter is better suited and safer for Canada’s air force pilots — particularly so they will have a backup while patrolling the country’s vast north.

That was one of the main reasons given by the federal government and military for choosing the twin-engine CF-18s as Canada’s main fighter jet in the 1980s."

"[Re: the number of precautionary shutdowns]“This means 228 times they had an opportunity of getting a plane back to base when it could have resulted in an engine failure of significant proportions.”

Liberal defence critic John McKay said the figures are concerning not only from the perspective of pilot safety, but also the potential cost of losing a multi-million-dollar F-35 due to engine failure.

“Say there’s one failure a year, not only is the life of a pilot at risk, but you lose one of your fleet,” he said."

http://www.canada.com/Fighter+pilots+sh ... story.html
Offline

alloycowboy

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 649
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 08:28
  • Location: Canada

Unread post22 Sep 2012, 03:03

@maus...... With all do respect you can't compare the General Electric F404-GE-400 turbofans used on Canada's CF-18's with the F-35's Pratt and Whitney F-135 as they are seperated by 25 years of engine design and metalurgy advances. For some historical context when the first GE F404 engine was doing its first test runs the first personal computers were just starting to roll of the production line.

Image
Offline

maus92

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1642
  • Joined: 21 May 2010, 17:50
  • Location: Annapolis, MD

Unread post22 Sep 2012, 14:03

@allowcowboy - Even new technology engines conspire to destroy themselves. Wit: Rolls Royce Trent 900, and GE nx 2-B. Both share contemporary computer assisted design and advanced materials.
Offline

munny

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 589
  • Joined: 13 Jan 2010, 01:39

Unread post22 Sep 2012, 14:28

Went through the mishaps list for F-16's on this site a while back. Correct me if I'm wrong but only 4 or 5 F-16 losses globally in 8 years due to engine failure?
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post22 Sep 2012, 19:00

munny wrote:Went through the mishaps list for F-16's on this site a while back. Correct me if I'm wrong but only 4 or 5 F-16 losses globally in 8 years due to engine failure?

There has been more losses than that. The claim is only that no F100-PW-229 powered F-16 were lost due to engine failure is more about statistics. Fuel starvation, stuck AB cable, or FOD doesn't count. In the USAF, there is only 42 F-16C Block 52 jets, with one lost (stuck in AB until fuel starvation). Compared to 227 F-16C 50s (20 losses total). Most of the Block 52 jets in non-US service are newer than the USAF jets.
Offline

southernphantom

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 825
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Somewhere in Dixie

Unread post22 Sep 2012, 21:10

neurotech wrote:
munny wrote:Went through the mishaps list for F-16's on this site a while back. Correct me if I'm wrong but only 4 or 5 F-16 losses globally in 8 years due to engine failure?

There has been more losses than that. The claim is only that no F100-PW-229 powered F-16 were lost due to engine failure is more about statistics. Fuel starvation, stuck AB cable, or FOD doesn't count. In the USAF, there is only 42 F-16C Block 52 jets, with one lost (stuck in AB until fuel starvation). Compared to 227 F-16C 50s (20 losses total). Most of the Block 52 jets in non-US service are newer than the USAF jets.

I know the Swampfox folks have -52s. Are the others at Spandahlem? Apologies for the OT; I was just wondering.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1965
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post23 Sep 2012, 00:57

southernphantom wrote:I know the Swampfox folks have -52s. Are the others at Spandahlem? Apologies for the OT; I was just wondering.

Nope, they are the only US Fighter Squadron flying Block 52 jets. The Thunderbirds fly Block 52 jets, The Nellis FWS (16th WS) aggressors fly Block 52 as well.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests