F-35 crashes in Alaska

Interesting that the pilot is in the 'chute well below the falling aircraft.

Good to see pilot ejected prior to when this video picks up.

myf16n said:

Interesting that the pilot is in the 'chute well below the falling aircraft.

Because he was inverted?

Whoooooof. That's going to be an investigation. 

They crashed one here in Albuquerque last May.

Yeah, that is one bizarre spin it was in.  I am sure some of it was the result of the CG shift of loosing the weight of the pilot and seat, but still strange.  Planes don't normally spin like that.  It's the rolling that is super strange (some sort of control lock?)

The fact that the plane is falling straight down is rather interesting also, probably indicating it was traveling very slowly..  Gear is down, so likely landing.

Interesting that the pilot is well below the plane in a fully deployed chute.  Possible the plane was lower when he ejected, and the ejection made it go mostly straight up and go into an extreme stall.

aircooled said:

Yeah, that is one bizarre spin it was in.  I am sure some of it was the result of the CG shift of loosing the weight of the pilot and seat, but still strange.  Planes don't normally spin like that.  It's the rolling that is super strange (some sort of control lock?)

The F35B/C variants have reaction nozzles in the middle of the wings for roll control when hovering, maybe one got stuck wide open somehow?

We don't yet know if it was landing or taking off. The small wings indicate that this was either an A (USAF) or a B (USMC) model. The C (Navy / USMC) has much larger wings. The B is the only variant that can hover. Since it took place at a USAF base, I'm guessing it's an A.

Ooof.  Watching any plane drop like a stone is terrifying.

I just wonder what Col John Boyd would have thought of the vertical take off aircraft direction that we are going with F-35 and Osprey type aircraft.  Its like the brass wants aircraft to be helicopters and airplanes at the same time.   

 This F-35 needs massive amounts of computer usage to remain stable.  Any failure of those systems and they crash. 

I remember a few years back a B-2 bomber crashed because heavy rain got into some sensors and the system failed. The  $2billion dollar aircraft crashed.  The thing had to have all its sensors functional in order to remain stable.   A pilot could not do it without the stability computers and sensors working.

2008 Andersen Air Force Base B-2 accident - Wikipedia

I hope they don't dock the pilot's pay to cover the cost of the mishap.

jharry3 said:

I remember a few years back a B-2 bomber crashed because heavy rain got into some sensors and the system failed. The  $2billion dollar aircraft crashed.  The thing had to have all its sensors functional in order to remain stable.   A pilot could not do it without the stability computers and sensors working.

That's been true of every fighter since at least the F-14.  Inherent stability is a compromise that makes a fighter less maneuverable, so once the electronics tech existed to work around instability, there was no reason to do it any more.  The older ones are analog, but they still won't fly without it working.

In reply to jharry3 :

Most modern fighters are designed to be unstable, this makes them much more maneuverable (can initiate maneuvers quicker when it always wants to not go straight).  The F16 is a prime example, and one of the first (I think the first in production?).

As to vertical take off.... there is no free ride.  Design is always a compromise.  Generally vertical takeoff greatly increases complexity (which decreased reliability and increases maintenance) and weight, which will of course impact performance.  For the Oprey, the use case is obvious since they are essentially designed / used as fast helicopter (unfortunately they are potentially more dangerous in failure).  For fighter?  I am bit less convinced.  The Harrier was the first and generally successful, but was most useful in landing vertically since vertically takeoffs require almost no stores being carried (they generally did rolling takeoffs).  Is it wildly useful to only be able to land vertically? For the F-35, I am sure they have way more power and loadout options for vertical takeoff, but... is it really worth the costs?  

The F-35, it should be noted, is not designed as a "turn and burn" fighter but more of a aerial command post that can detect targets and direct attacks (many times from other aircraft like F-15s, or even drones released from the F-35) as passively and invisibly as possible.

Is that bizarre spin the result of design instability... don't know, but seems unlikely?

Heck, the damn things computers might have crashed. Of course these planes have multiple redundant systems, especially for control / stability.

As an ex ejection seat mechanic (AME) working on F4's back in the early 70's, the drogue parachute on the seat straightens out the seat.  Then the seat automatically separates the pilot from the seat and deploys the personnel parachute to allow the pilot to land safely.  This happens very quickly.  The Martin-Baker seats I worked on were listed as 0 air speed and 0 altitude capability, but I never heard of anyone trying to eject sitting on the ground.

aircooled said:

The Harrier was the first and generally successful, but was most useful in landing vertically since vertically takeoffs require almost no stores being carried (they generally did rolling takeoffs).  Is it wildly useful to only be able to land vertically?

The short rolling takeoffs are still very valuable because it allows you to operate fixed wing jet fighters from a much smaller carrier.  Yes, they have less performance than a fighter designed to operate off something the size of a Nimitz or Ford class carrier, but they are significantly more capable than then helicopters you would otherwise be limited to.  That's why the Marines wanted the B version.

Whether or not it was a good idea to cram all three roles into one core aircraft design is a different question.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

jharry3 said:

I remember a few years back a B-2 bomber crashed because heavy rain got into some sensors and the system failed. The  $2billion dollar aircraft crashed.  The thing had to have all its sensors functional in order to remain stable.   A pilot could not do it without the stability computers and sensors working.

That's been true of every fighter since at least the F-14.  Inherent stability is a compromise that makes a fighter less maneuverable, so once the electronics tech existed to work around instability, there was no reason to do it any more.  The older ones are analog, but they still won't fly without it working.

 

So none today would have been able to do this?

WarHistoryOnline.com: The Time An F-106 Interceptor Landed Itself Without A Pilot

Mustang50 said:

As an ex ejection seat mechanic (AME) working on F4's back in the early 70's, the drogue parachute on the seat straightens out the seat.  Then the seat automatically separates the pilot from the seat and deploys the personnel parachute to allow the pilot to land safely.  This happens very quickly.  The Martin-Baker seats I worked on were listed as 0 air speed and 0 altitude capability, but I never heard of anyone trying to eject sitting on the ground.

My brother from a different mother! I too was an AME, in the Marines though. Started on the F-4J/S and eventually moved to the A4, F5, and T38 before becoming a Plane Captain. 

VolvoHeretic said:

So none today would have been able to do this?

If the fly-by-wire computers were still working then sure, they could in principle do that.

The F-35 ejection in South Carolina a couple years ago was similar to the cornfield bomber, in that after pilot ejected the plane kept flying straight and level until it ran out of gas.  It didn't have the same kind of smooth belly landing, but that's more about what kind of terrain it happens to be flying over.

I have been part of the construction of the interconnect drive system on the V-22, the lift fan drive system for the F-35 B and the F-135 engine (the engine that powers the F-35). People love to crap on the F-35 but it has the best safety record of it's counterparts (https://lexingtoninstitute.org/the-f-35-is-the-safest-and-most-capable-fighter-the-u-s-military-has/). I think people love nostalgia but the fact of the matter is it is a hugely capable aircraft. Sure I would like a '67 Chevelle but if my life depended on driving that everyday I may pass and take a more technologically advanced rig. 

The V-22 does E36 M3 that no other rotor craft can dream of. Sometimes stretching the envelope comes with drawbacks. The V-22 is actually in line with other rotor craft in the fleet (https://defenseopinion.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-the-safety-of-the-v-22-osprey/744/).

We should put away the jump to conclusions mat for a little bit. I haven't even seen a reliable report of what variant it is yet.

Mustang50 said:

As an ex ejection seat mechanic (AME) working on F4's back in the early 70's, the drogue parachute on the seat straightens out the seat.  Then the seat automatically separates the pilot from the seat and deploys the personnel parachute to allow the pilot to land safely.  This happens very quickly.  The Martin-Baker seats I worked on were listed as 0 air speed and 0 altitude capability, but I never heard of anyone trying to eject sitting on the ground.

Check out "The Man in the Hot Seat" by Doddy Hay. He worked for Martin Baker in the 50's and took the first ride on most of their seats of that era. They used to take them to air shows and do demonstrations off the back of a truck (lorry I suppose being Poms).

IIRC he lost several inches in height during his time with M-B

In reply to NY Nick :

The comment on the V-22, which I suspect you are referring to, is not related to the general reliability of the V22, which is reasonable (though there is a serious issue that is currently being fixed with the interconnect currently, clutch I think, which has apparently caused a few crashes), it's the failure mode issue.  The general inability for the V22 to auto-rotate like a helicopter is certainly a concern regarding survivability.  To be clear, engine failures and the resulting "landings" have not been an issue that I know of, but if it does, it can be rather scary.  Auto-rotation is not a common tool in combat or general use, but it's certainly nice to have as an option to have, safety wise.

The V-22 clearly has some very big advantages over a helicopter (mostly that its WAY faster) so I suspect the downsides are an acceptable risk.  Not like helicopters don't have issues themselves!

In reply to aircooled :

I re-read your comment on the  V-22, I agree it has different Failure modes and options to recover from them. My comment wasn't aimed at you. The V-22 takes a lot of guff for safety but statistically it is comparable to other rotor craft, that's all I was trying to say. 

aircooled said:

The V-22 clearly has some very big advantages over a helicopter (mostly that its WAY faster) so I suspect the downsides are an acceptable risk.  Not like helicopters don't have issues themselves!

In a military aircraft, yes.  I suspect one would have a hard time getting it past the FAA into passenger use.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

It has been harder. Some of that is probably been based on demand but the Leonardo B609 is just about to get certified. 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_AW609