New B-2 Bomber Crash Photos Show Carnage Up-close

Gizmodo ^ | 15 July, 2008 | Gizmodo

[CarrotAndStick]

It is a very believable explanation.

I found it surprising that a plane that is geometrically unstable, could be brought down by the failure of one critical sensor. Not saying it might be false, but on a plane that can only fly with the help of a computer, that seems odd. I'd have guessed it would be designed with double and triple redundancies. For 1.2-odd billions, wouldn't it be expected?

[ChromeDome]

It was either the F4 or the F15 that was the last military fighter/bomber aircraft that was aerodynamically stable. All the “performance” aircraft anymore require computers to keep them flying.

[rustyncrusty]

Later read

[CarrotAndStick]

Yes.

[CarrotAndStick]

No, I doubt the F-4, F-15 could fly without a computer, but you’re right, almost all new aircraft need the assistance of computers.

[TalonDJ]

I'd have guessed it would be designed with double and triple redundancies. For 1.2-odd billions, wouldn't it be expected?

Yes I would expect that as well. My guess is there was a common failure mode involved here with redundant sensors. To be honest I can think of several ways to avoid that or detect it before it causes an error but those ways are just speculation without knowing more of the design. Their explanation of the cause probably does gloss over what really happened because to explain more requires more detailed data. But I don't it intentionally misrepresents what happened. Most likely it just over simplifies it.

[Old Student]

“No, I doubt the F-4, F-15 could fly without a computer, but you’re right, almost all new aircraft need the assistance of computers.”

On the F-4, as long as you had hydraulics, you could still fly them. Not much of anything since, however.

I didn't actually crew F-4’s, but I did train on them while qualifying to work on F-111’s.

[Fractal Trader]

one of the most expensive military aircraft in the world

Duh....does anyone know of a military aircraft that is more expensive than the B-2, outside of the shuttle, if you wanted to count that as a military aircraft?

[Yo-Yo]

Corrected for inflation, the XB-70 Valkyrie had to come close.

[raygun]

I just reviewed the video of the crash. And it was evident that the B-2 stalls just like the Falcon. It retains pitch and loses altitude. The procedure to recover from a full stall in the Viper is engage manual pitch override, and amplify rocking/fluttering pitch moments with control inputs. But EVERY pilot knows the first thing to do respecting a stall is to get the nose DOWN and increase airspeed.

Now, I know all pilots are trained to trust their instruments. There's got to be a break somewhere with conventional wisdom in that when the instruments are telling you that you're nose down -3^o and yet all I'm seeing is clear blue sky. I'd be pushing the yoke foward, screaming for power and gear up. The stall warning had to be going off (and if not sink-rate warning horn).

The pilots stuck with the bird for as long as they could (until the very absolute last second). Aside from the issue of the sensor malfunction generating erroneous V2 velocity, there has to be an avionics issue in that the nose would NOT come down; if that nose would've come down.

The only other thing that I see as plausible explanation is large wake vorticity; that's like flying in a microburst.

[Leisler]

Did he have a sophisticated radar defense warning system?

That's like, but not even way close to, sending a SF battalion to paint stripes on a Guatemalan liquor store's parking lot.

[IronKros]

Doh, I had just assumed the article posted was the same linked.