Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

navy_airframer wrote:

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.

So much I don't know.
At any rate, it is kind of dumbfounding that there were no fatalities.

F-16.net Sponsor

count_to_10 wrote:

navy_airframer wrote:

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.

So much I don't know.
At any rate, it is kind of dumbfounding that there were no fatalities.

I could definitely see an uncontained failure (basically an explosive failure) causing a fire in a wing tank, but that still doesn't explain the fact that the fan is, in fact, behind said wing.

Is it possible that the witness in fact saw fire from the wing root/fuselage, which to the untrained eye appeared to be coming from the wing itself?

At the wing roots are the heat exchangers and some of the ECS equipment along with fuel lines and hydraulic lines. Maybe that is were the fire was coming from but I dont thank thats very likely. I haven't ever seen or heard of a failure that would cause this to happen but that doesn't mean it hasn't or can't happen. I believe it was somthing in the port engine bay that failed and caused the mishap. What exactly failed will be realeased in the mishap report.

The Navy released a report detailing the cause of the crash: an "unprecedented" dual engine failure.

"The report says the engines failed for different, unrelated reasons. The right engine stopped working after it ingested a flammable liquid, according to the report. That liquid ignited and caused a catastrophic failure of the compressor, according to the report.

The report says that in other crashes where the high-pressure compressor section blades in the engine failed, that liquid was later found to be fuel.

The problem with the left engine had to do with its afterburner not igniting. The Navy was unable to determine the exact cause of that problem because of the extensive damage to the plane."

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/07/a ... sh-070212/

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/07/n ... sh-070212/

So, did the left afterburner not ignite because it's fuel line exploded into the right engine or what?

Hampton Roads Pilot has a more extensive story about the JAGMAN investigation, one of several inquiries after an incident involving naval aircraft:

http://hamptonroads.com/2012/07/dualeng ... h-va-beach

count_to_10 wrote:

So, did the left afterburner not ignite because it's fuel line exploded into the right engine or what?

I'm guessing the center line fuel cap fell off a la this:

There is nothing else forward of the intake where fuel could leak into the engine.

I'd personally support the accelerated replacement of old F/A-18C/D platforms with new-build F-18E+ platforms, as an offset to the unexpected delayed recapitalization of F-35C units.

But I'd also support a more ambitious and modernized plan to this interim recapitalization relief, in the form of completing development of the more durable F414-EPE engine.

Get these next-gen Super Hornets into the air ASAP!! And power them with more durable engines... then we can talk about the more hypothetical and more plausible future class recapitalization time-frame.

pushoksti wrote:

count_to_10 wrote:

So, did the left afterburner not ignite because it's fuel line exploded into the right engine or what?

I'm guessing the center line fuel cap fell off a la this:

There is nothing else forward of the intake where fuel could leak into the engine.

Im pretty sure that wasnt the cause. If i remember right the pilot in that jet ejected before he reached the end of the runway. To be honest i dont know where the fuel (if it was even caused by fuel) could come from. The afterburner failure had to be after the jet already rotated as that is one of the things thats checked on the take off roll. The hornet also will have an indicator on the HUD if it has an AB failure. As to the reilabillity of the 404 and 414 engines, i would gladly ride in any jet straped to one of them. Ive have seen fastners and birds and other things run through the engine with very little to no effect on performance. The legacy hornets are still a very capable aircraft and they are still being continously upgraded.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

F/A-18D crash - Virginia Beach appartments