Guest NU lax Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 CH, That does not look fun. Thanks for the pics.
Toasty Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Why do you suppose the in-flight refueling probe was extended?
Clayton Bigsby Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 and why did the canards go full nose-down? wouldn't you want them up as long as possible for dynamic braking, and to smoothen the impact of the radome on the runway?
PapaJu Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Originally posted by toastychicken: Why do you suppose the in-flight refueling probe was extended? Might be the standard position for it, a la the EA-6 Prowler.
ClearedHot Posted February 8, 2006 Author Posted February 8, 2006 Originally posted by wannaairlift: Might be the standard position for it, a la the EA-6 Prowler. The Refueling probe on the prowler is fixed. the probe on the Typhoon is hydraulically actuated and is "stowed" when not refueling to reduce drag. I wonder if is has to do with inerting the fuel system. In the Block 10-15 Viper certain emergencies related to hydraulics called for the refueling door to be opened prior to landing.
Guest KoolKat Posted February 8, 2006 Posted February 8, 2006 Or perhaps the nose wheel and refueling probe are driven by the same part of the hydraulic system...one no workie, the other no workie? BENDY EDIT: As for the canard, I would imagine it has a "resting" position if it doesn't have any hydraulic fluid the control system. Much like the elevator of the 130, although the 130 has a bob weight that causing the nose up feature. [ 08. February 2006, 18:02: Message edited by: Bender ]
war007afa Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 My question is why did he land with ordinance? Can't they jettison those somewhere? That coulda sucked a little more...
Guest KoolKat Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 https://www.eurofighter.com/Typhoon/SubSystems/ states the the landing gear and FR Probe are part of the same hydraulic "box." However it also states that it has two seperate engine driven systems... The landing gear also has a "computer." Tough to make any sense of the possible causes, for all I know it was a nose wheel turned 90 degree... As for ordinance, if it was a computer F up, it may have caused the jettison process to fail as well. I'm leaning more toward CH's idea of the FR probe being extended on purpose for a hydraulic malfunction. We'll have to wait for a report of some sort. CH, when did this happen? BENDY
Guest Xtndr50boom Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by Bender: As for the canard, I would imagine it has a "resting" position if it doesn't have any hydraulic fluid the control system.Bender, I think he's talking more about during the landing/crashdown pics (2 and 3) than after shutdown. Looking at the pictures, it looks like the pilot went full nose down right after touchdown
war007afa Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Well, I do see the 5-board in the pic...guess it just depends on what's at the end of the runway or if he hit the rabbit-catcher/cable/whatever they use. Check out the engine though...fodded out hardcore. Looks like he got out OK, hope he didn't get hurt.
Mambo Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by war007afa: My question is why did he land with ordinance? Can't they jettison those somewhere? That coulda sucked a little more... I'm guessing they were probably not live ordanance.
Guest KoolKat Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Ah, yeah, got it. Once the nose hit the dirt...his shoulders probably hit the strap...stick probably went foward. Good catch though. Mambo's probably correct on that point. BENDY
BFM this Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by Bender: The landing gear also has a "computer."WTF is it with the french airplane designers and their computer-love? Is it that the old simple gear lever is to prone to error from the monkey in the seat?
Clayton Bigsby Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Eurofighter ain't french...if you'll recall, computer glitch issues have caused two F-22 crashes also... [ 08. February 2006, 21:07: Message edited by: Chuck Farleston ]
Guest Hoser Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by Chuck Farleston: wouldn't you want them up as long as possible for dynamic braking, and to smoothen the impact of the radome on the runway? The problem with holding the nose off as long as possible is that you will eventually get so low, that as the nose drops, there will not be enough elevator authority to "catch" the nose before is slams into the ground. A better solution is to attempt to fly the nose (i.e. softer touchdown) onto the ground. Hoser
Guest Hoser Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by Chuck Farleston: Eurofighter ain't french...if you'll recall, computer glitch issues have caused two F-22 crashes also... BFM was referring to using computers for something simple. Yes the planes of today with the more advanced aerodynamics and instability do require computers to keep the airplane pointy side forward, but any airplane can have a set of pulleys and cables to let the gear down. without the assistance of computers. Hoser
Guest rapier01 Posted February 9, 2006 Posted February 9, 2006 You guys figure this would be considered a write off?
ClearedHot Posted February 9, 2006 Author Posted February 9, 2006 Originally posted by rapier01: You guys figure this would be considered a write off? Nope, it will fly again.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now