Skip to comments.
Report: flight control deficiency causes Raptor damage
Air Force Link ^
| 4/4/2005
| AFPN Staff
Posted on 04/04/2005 3:00:56 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
4/4/2005 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- An accident investigation board determined that a flight control system deficiency caused an F/A-22 Raptor aircraft mishap Sept. 28 near Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The flight control system allowed the aircraft to exceed set angles of attack and G-force limits. The resulting aircraft damage is estimated at more than $3 million.
No fatalities, injuries or damage to private property resulted from the mishap, and the F/A-22 from the 411th Flight Test Squadron was able to land at Edwards.
The board found the primary cause of the mishap was a deficiency in the aircraft's flight control system, which provides aircraft stability, control and maneuvering agility.
The aircraft was flying a high-risk test mission with an F-16 Fighting Falcon. After encountering the F-16's jet wash, the Raptor experienced an unexpected and rapid pitch oscillation. The mission was to test air-to-air tracking scenarios to evaluate handling qualities with a configuration of two external fuel tanks.
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.
The aircraft, one of the Air Force's first F/A-22s, is primarily a testing aircraft. (Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service)
TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: miltech; raptor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
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.
2
posted on
04/04/2005 3:03:36 PM PDT
by
FormerACLUmember
(Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Tell me if I got this right... the plane is better than its software?
3
posted on
04/04/2005 3:05:18 PM PDT
by
thoughtomator
("The Passion of the Opus" - 2 hours of a FReeper being crucified on his own self-pitying thread)
To: FormerACLUmember
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."
4
posted on
04/04/2005 3:09:30 PM PDT
by
68skylark
To: 68skylark
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.
5
posted on
04/04/2005 3:13:20 PM PDT
by
FormerACLUmember
(Honoring Saint Jude's assistance every day.)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
They've released the screen capture of the onboard computer before the crash...
To: FormerACLUmember
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.
To: FormerACLUmember
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.
8
posted on
04/04/2005 3:17:09 PM PDT
by
68skylark
To: FormerACLUmember
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.
9
posted on
04/04/2005 3:17:33 PM PDT
by
Paul_Denton
(The UN is UN-American! Get the UN out of the US and US out of the UN!)
To: FormerACLUmember
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).
10
posted on
04/04/2005 3:17:42 PM PDT
by
expatpat
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
This R&D stuff get it right at Edwards, then kick ass.
11
posted on
04/04/2005 3:20:59 PM PDT
by
boomop1
To: 68skylark

yeah, better known as Aviation LEAK and Space Technology...
12
posted on
04/04/2005 3:22:33 PM PDT
by
Chode
(American Hedonist ©®)
To: 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. 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).
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
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.
To: MD_Willington_1976
LOL! Hadn't seen that one before.
15
posted on
04/04/2005 3:28:58 PM PDT
by
7.62 x 51mm
(• Veni • Vidi • Vino • Visa • "I came, I saw, I drank wine, I shopped")
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
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.
16
posted on
04/04/2005 3:30:03 PM PDT
by
tet68
( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
To: thoughtomator
17
posted on
04/04/2005 3:34:18 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
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.
18
posted on
04/04/2005 3:38:01 PM PDT
by
ProudVet77
(It's boogitty boogitty boogitty season!)
To: MD_Willington_1976
To: tet68
Was there a human being inside at the time? O_o
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-25 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson