Report: flight control deficiency causes Raptor damage

Air Force Link ^ | 4/4/2005 | AFPN Staff

[FormerACLUmember]

Technobabble, but intensely monitored by Chinese, Russian, and European aircraft designers and/or their intelligence.

I am shocked that this highly specific information is not top secret.

[thoughtomator]

Tell me if I got this right... the plane is better than its software?

[68skylark]

I am shocked that this highly specific information is not top secret.

There was a funny scene in a John Le Care novel, when a spy talked about how frustrating it was to gather information from the United States.

He'd work for years to get some especially juicy info (like a technical drawing of the B-1 bomber) -- only to see the drawing published the next week in "Aviation Week and Space Technology."

[FormerACLUmember]

There was a funny scene in a John Le Care novel, when a spy talked about how frustrating it was to gather information from the United States. He'd work for years to get some especially juicy info (like a technical drawing of the B-1 bomber) -- only to see the drawing published the next week in "Aviation Week and Space Technology."

It is ridiculous that Aviation Week and Space Technology publishes this. My cousin was a an NSA official and goes apoplectic when top secret technical info, of profound national security significance, gets leaked.

[MD_Willington_1976]

They've released the screen capture of the onboard computer before the crash...

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

I'm shocked and appalled that the F-22 has been in testing for 15 years and is still having these kinds of problems, as well as its neverending story of problems with software.

[68skylark]

Well I see both sides of the issue. I think we've shown that being an "open society" brings us lots more strengths than weaknesses, overall.

[Paul_Denton]

I am shocked that this highly specific information is not top secret.

Same here. Everything about the F/A-22 needs to be secret (the same goes for the B-2 and F-117 as well). Not even its maximum takeoff weight should be public.

[expatpat]

Let's keep our knickers on. There is nothing here that's top secret. The software/system-control problem will be fixed (probably already has).

[boomop1]

This R&D stuff get it right at Edwards, then kick ass.

[Chode]

yeah, better known as Aviation LEAK and Space Technology...

[SevenMinusOne]

I'm shocked and appalled that the F-22 has been in testing for 15 years and is still having these kinds of problems, as well as its neverending story of problems with software.

I understand your concern - but these type of malfunctions / mishaps are part of the business - (hell we still have F-14, 15s, 16's and 18's going down from time to time over simple flight system malfunctions).

The F-22 is the bird of the future (though we definitely need a new topnotch fighter for the Navy - This is where we have been extremely shortsighted).

[HerrKobes]

The aircraft's load factor or G-force limits in this configuration were 7.33 and minus 0.5.

During the test, the load factors ranged between 10.1 to minus 11.7

First of all, let me say that I normally sit sideways in the flight deck, and that I only have PIC hours in a Cessna 172 plus a paltry .5 in a T-37, but...

+10.1 to -11.7 (!!!!) with external fuel tanks? I understand these are instantaneous load factors and not sustained, but wow. Quite a jet.

What kind of statement do you think we would make forward deploying 36 of these things to Japan? I'm curious what a few of these guys with AWACS would do against a swarm of poorly-flown J-8s.

[7.62 x 51mm]

LOL! Hadn't seen that one before.

[tet68]

Yeeeeehaw, going from positive 10 gs to negative 11 is a
hell of a ride, the very fact that it was able to land
shows what kind of a plane they've built.

[pfflier]

That's affirmative.

[ProudVet77]

The aircraft's load factor or G-force limits in this configuration were 7.33 and minus 0.5. During the test, the load factors ranged between 10.1 to minus 11.7.

First note the term "this configuration". Max/min G's are parameters. In this case, they were set very conservatively. Probably to reduce stress on the airframe. The actuals 10.1/-11.7, a 10.1G positive is not that extreme, and I suspect the jet can handle much more than that, although the pilot can't. So no real intel here. The -11.7 is usually kept down to -4 or less. A roller coaster which can make people throw up is in the -2 range. This is definately a pilot limited number. The pilot must have felt like his ankles were going to come up through his throat.
FWIW - The AMRAAM missile we use can pull 50Gs. So no matter how hard an aircraft turns the missile can out turn it.

[Constantine XIII]

ROFL

[Constantine XIII]

Was there a human being inside at the time? O_o