Posted on 08/21/2006 8:40:58 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
August 21, 2006 (by Lieven Dewitte) - An engine explosion is blamed for the crash last April of an Air Force F-16C in a cornfield near Luke AFB, Arizona.
The results of an Air Force investigation into the April 11th crash were released today.
The pilot of the F-16C (#83-1164) had just left from Luke AFB for a two-ship student training mission to perform basic fighter maneuvers when the engine malfunctioned.
He was consequently instructed to return to Luke but when he realized he wouldn't be able to make it he decided to ejected. The plane crashed in a farm field about two miles southwest of the base but the pilot parachuted to safety.
The engine was a Pratt & Whitney F100 engine. Eyewitnesses on the ground saw flames at the rear end of the jet, shortly after take-off.
Luke AFB A/C use P&W engines exclusively. Many problems in 1999.
The F-16's engines are prone to developing cracks after a certain number of hours of use. The problem is that its not possible to see these cracks without an x-ray because they are minute and on the inside of the engine. Then, one day the cracks cause pieces to break off and the engine turbine basically disintegrates in mid-flight.
Its an original design defect in the engines and its what you often get because of the government "lowest bidder" contract awards process.
The Air Force has known about this problem for a couple of decades, and basically while they try to overhaul the engines on a schedule to prevent this, they have decided that the occasional loss of an aircraft due to this situation is cheaper that buying new engines for all of them.
Thank God that the pilots almost always manage to get out.
So...if you ever wondered why F-16s lose their engines and crash so often...now you know THE REST OF THE STORY...
Airline puts in Low bidder crap parts, 300 hours later the blades come off the turbine wheel.
In the F-14A, which used the P&W TF-30, they called that "turbine blade liberation." Unfortunately, when those blades "sought freedom" at least a few would chose a path to the other engine, or through some control rods, or other important part of the airplane.
You are trying to sound smart. For some, you might.
Care to tell us what other USAF inventory uses those same "... F-16's engines..." ?
ALL engines develop cracks (blades), sooner or later.
they have decided that the occasional loss of an aircraft due to this situation is cheaper that buying new engines for all of them.
There is something cracked all right. But it ain't flying.
However, having worked with a couple of AF legal-types whose job it was to deal with procurement of these engines (about 10 years ago), that is what I recall they told me about the problem with the F-16 engines.
If that just doesn't pass muster with you, then, as Steve Martin said:
"Well, EXCUUUUUSE MEEEEEEEEEE!"
Soooo...I think I'll take their word about the problem with these engines vis-a-vis the military procurement process over yours....
Or maybe it's because the design and manufacture of a high-performance jet engine is a complex task, and not all "flaws" are foreseeable.
As for your sources, lawyers and bureaucrats have their uses, but understanding the metallugy of fracture fatigue/failure ain't one of them.
Sounds like CYA to me. You know, you spend a 100 billion for engines for 500 aircraft, then the birds start crashing unexpectedly and early, and the manufacturer says....
I heard that a lot of criticism about the Tomcat being underpowered was because of the TF-30, which was only supposed to be on the aircraft during initial testing, but wound up being on the production aircraft for most of the Tomcat's life. Bad deal, and not just because if gave the USAF a lot of ammo to make fun of the Navy and the Tomcat while drinking at the bar.
The Navy has an incredibly stupid tradition of not bringing in weapons systems to spec. and then leaving them in that configuration to "save money" which ends up costing us money in the long run.
Take the F-14. Supposed to have the GE-110 engine, but we fielded it with the TF-30 giving it a thrust to weight around .67. That measures up with the aircraft like the F-5 and Mig-21. The program to reengine the F-14 gets cut to half the aircraft so only half the F-14s ever fly with the GE motor which makes it a rocket ship. Next is the radar. The large majority of F-14s were equipped with the AWG-9 radar which was designed in the sixties. While it was great back then it was a piece of junk in the nineties. In the same time that the Navy was dragging an analog 128K computer around the Air Force had fielded its third radar for the F-15.
Retiring the Tomcat next month will be about 15 years too late. The Navy took a great platform and turned it into a piece of flying FOD, killing a fair number of aircrew in the process. I flew them so I earned the right to say that.
Despite some reservations about single engine airplanes, I think the JSF will be a better deal for the Navy. Since the Air Force will be the main buyer, and commonality will be mandated, maybe the Navy won't be able to nickel and dime itself into another piece of crap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.