By: CommanderJB
- 28th April 2009 at 03:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No. '902' had fully functioning TVC:
Nevertheless, expect a production standard example to be built (again).
Ah, apologies, I'll have to pay closer attention in future. Too dazzled looking at the rest of the aircraft.
It's heartening to hear that the aircraft was insured, but much less heartening to hear that it was a FADEC failure.
Also - I hesitate to ask given the rather unfortunate nature of that article - but what's a 'PMC unit', and what is FMP?
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th April 2009 at 04:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, I am glad the pilot is ok..............accident happen from time to time.
That said, I doubt many here would be so gentile. If, a Lightning II or Typhoon had crashed..........
With all do respect............;)
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th April 2009 at 04:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oh God, another Reuben Johnson report (tm). Take any paragraph, you'll find a mistake...
1. As I've said previously, and it is officially confirmed now, the accident didn't happen on take off, but on high speed run trials.
2. The Su didn't "explode", no matter what the fetish fantasies of Johnson are, it veered off the runway and hit an obstacle/ruptured its tanks and burned.
3. The Su was one of the contenders in Brazil, and was not "retired" to please France, the US, China or India, but because Brazil wanted to change the specs of the bid. Sukhoi is currently presenting a second bid. Imho they will fail, but it doesn't say anything about the programme.
4. All the part about the engine is either plain wrong or misinformed. The glitch was not that the engine was working "only" at 93% (strange way to put it actually, even for Reuben), but that the power was that high! Again, it was not a take-off trial. As I've told, FADEC and engine controls failed, right engine went to FMP, Frolov tried everything to stop the beast going astray, burnt its brakes in the process, ejected, the aircraft burnt out to more or less 50%.
5. Sukhoi was indeed planning to present it to some high officials, but it was not connected with "Communist May Day holidays" (wtf? - May the 1st is a holiday in quite a few very capitalist countries, and for a good reason) or (rather) the V-Day parade.
6. The aircraft was fully covered by insurance, btw, so Sukhoi won't lose any money actually. It's a setback, sure, but imho it won't affect the programme terribly. The next proto is already almost complete.
Epic fail, once again.
I think you are being extremely positive. In your assessment of the Su-35's crash and the likely ramifications...........IMO
By: RSM55
- 28th April 2009 at 08:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are being extremely positive. In your assessment of the Su-35's crash and the likely ramifications...........IMO
No I'm not, I'm just saying that this crash won't affect the overall programme (albeit it is certainly going to delay it because they will have to step up in- and post-prod. quality control at the engine manufacturer) but as it does not involve major redesigns, the discovery of an inherent design flaw or any permanent loss of cashflow I'm being cautiously optimistic.
As the latest more or less official news go, engine controls failed because of a production error at the engine factory (fuel flow controls badly installed), so whatever the computer said, the engine just didn't want to hear ;)
Besides, the "new" Su-35 programme has progressed at great and steady pace (for contemporary Russian standards) till now - don't see any reason why it shouldn't go forth - as the latest crash doesn't affect critical components (that's what we know now - of course it might change over time when new info pops up).
To repeat what Vitali Tyulkin, Sukhoi's official spokesman, told the Kommersant newspaper, the incident "happened at 16:55 local time during low-speed run trials. ". Another source at KnAAPO told that the tests were initially scheduled for Friday, but then postponed to Sunday because of engine problems. Apparently, they didn't fix them completely...
On a more humourous note, one could say that the plane just couldn't wait to get airborne :D
By: RSM55
- 28th April 2009 at 08:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That said, I doubt many here would be so gentile. If, a Lightning II or Typhoon had crashed
A F-35 or a Typhoon - never. We only do Rafale-bashing here :D
On a more serious note, test aircraft, pre-production aircraft, first serial aircraft sometimes crash, that's a fact, and it's a very stupid form of "international competition" (another word would fit here) to look at who did crash what when and rejoice at the tragedy of others.
On the other hand, if a series aircraft regularly crashes or experiences problems, that hints at some serious flaws and certainly can and must be discussed.
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th April 2009 at 09:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That said, I doubt many here would be so gentile. If, a Lightning II or Typhoon had crashed..........
With all do respect............;)
That is because of the bloody camouflage. :) If a Tyffie or F-22 burns down, noone is gonna miss another dull gray bird differing only by serial applied. But Su-35 is something entirely different - all fanboys are shockingly asking - was it the desert painted splinter, the grey Ferris scheme, the green overall or the pink-painted one with flashy stars? :cool:
By: martinez
- 28th April 2009 at 11:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1. As I've said previously, and it is officially confirmed now, the accident didn't happen on take off, but on high speed run trials.
4. All the part about the engine is either plain wrong or misinformed. The glitch was not that the engine was working "only" at 93% (strange way to put it actually, even for Reuben), but that the power was that high! Again, it was not a take-off trial. As I've told, FADEC and engine controls failed, right engine went to FMP, Frolov tried everything to stop the beast going astray, burnt its brakes in the process, ejected, the aircraft burnt out to more or less 50%.
Hmm, but then it doesnt make sense at all. Why would he burn brakes to stop the aircraft immediately when the steerable front wheel and tails worked well, he could stay on the runway, shut down the engine with emergency switches and engage the fire extinguishing system from the cockpit.
Now, they lost new SU-35 and pilot almost lost his life. So far, it doesnt sound like he was acting as a very skilled pilot unless there is more we do not know yet.
New
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku
- 28th April 2009 at 11:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now, they lost new SU-35 and pilot almost lost his life. So far, it doesnt sound like he was acting as a very skilled pilot unless there is more we do not know yet.
Mr. Frolov was called into work on Sunday on short notice- which made him mad!! The previous night he'd been reading Scooter's posts which made him really maaad!!
Fuming, he commences his high speed taxi trial, so aggressive on the thottle it comes off in his hand.....now he has to eject- and guess what- he's really, reallyMAAAAAAADD!!!
By: Austin
- 28th April 2009 at 11:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now, they lost new SU-35 and pilot almost lost his life. So far, it doesnt sound like he was acting as a very skilled pilot unless there is more we do not know yet.
Well before passing any judgment on the test pilot you need to get all the facts right , there can be n number of reason of such an accident , and calling a test pilot unskilled without having ful facts at your disposal is simply lame on your part.
By: martinez
- 28th April 2009 at 12:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well before passing any judgment on the test pilot you need to get all the facts right .
That`s exact the same I wanted to say that there is something more about that crash we do not know yet. Read my post twice before writting any judgement that impact me. I woudnt dare to say that Zhenya is an unskilled pilot, I bet he acted correctly under circumstances which caused that crash.
But so far,I refuse to believe that due a engine malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft during a high speed taxiing. That is quite stupid, isnt it?
By: RSM55
- 28th April 2009 at 13:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Sir, I guess you're not a pilot, to say the least. You might even have never played a flight sim:
Hmm, but then it doesnt make sense at all. Why would he burn brakes to stop the aircraft immediately when the steerable front wheel and tails worked well
Have you ever tried to steer a heavy fighter aircraft on the runway at low speed when one engine is at 10 percent and the other suddenly goes and blocks at full military power with the "front wheel and the tails"? I guess the answer is no.
He even used the chute!
he could stay on the runway
that doesn't run till the Polish border, you know.
shut down the engine with emergency switches
When the engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, you could try everything but it won't work. Of course, the first thing to do is emergency shutdown - but it didn't work, as simple as that. And with such an engine a FMP even during a couple of seconds, you get quite an impetus, believe me, and a assymetric one at that.
and engage the fire extinguishing system from the cockpit.
It was not on fire while Frolov was in the cockpit, goddamit! It just went to FMP and maybe even AB. If it had caught fire, it would actually be a much better situation :D
So far, it doesnt sound like he was acting as a very skilled pilot unless there is more we do not know yet.
First think about what you're saying before posting something like that, except when your prof. is test pilot, of course, which I seriously doubt after reading your post.
By: Buddha
- 28th April 2009 at 14:08Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft
[B]But so far,I refuse to believe that due a engine malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft during a high speed taxiing. That is quite stupid, isnt it?.
I crashed a Lama for the same reason in 1980! Fuel pump malfunctioned and feed too much fuel into the engine! Anything man-made can fail, some at the worst possible times - and O' yes, I was a Military Test Pilot!!
By: haavarla
- 28th April 2009 at 14:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mr. Frolov was called into work on Sunday on short notice- which made him mad!! The previous night he'd been reading Scooter's posts which made him really maaad!!
Fuming, he commences his high speed taxi trial, so aggressive on the thottle it comes off in his hand.....now he has to eject- and guess what- he's really, reallyMAAAAAAADD!!!
LOL.
I do enjoy your post otaku, keep up the good work:)
By: djcross
- 28th April 2009 at 14:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
and engage the fire extinguishing system from the cockpit.
It was not on fire while Frolov was in the cockpit, goddamit! It just went to FMP and maybe even AB. If it had caught fire, it would actually be a much better situation :D
When you push the "FIRE" button in a western jet, an electric valve shuts off fuel flow to the engine. This causes the engine to stop and isolates a fuel feed source for a potential fire. Do Russian jets have no equivalent to a "FIRE" button?
By: haavarla
- 28th April 2009 at 14:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Have you ever tried to steer a heavy fighter aircraft on the runway at low speed when one engine is at 10 percent and the other suddenly goes and blocks at full military power with the "front wheel and the tails"? I guess the answer is no.
He even used the chute!
that doesn't run till the Polish border, you know.
Agreed.
With the power of those 117S engine, its impossible to steer the aircraft in a strait line if one engine goes full and the other engine dont..
The fact that the engines on a Flanker are widely placed does not help at all.
It's all adios amigos and eject.
Thanks
New
By: Anonymous
- 28th April 2009 at 16:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think we need to know a lot more. Before anyone here can make a serious judgement.........
By: martinez
- 28th April 2009 at 16:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Mr. RSM55, before we start calling names, I had to admit that I`m not a pilot nor a lama playing flight sims. If still curious who you are talking to, be aware that my job for several years now is to ensure that something similar never happens to our pilots and that means having enough knowledge of aircraft and engine systems (fortunately for the Mig and not Sukhoi) and preparing the aicraft to its first flight after heavy maintenance we are routinely executing. At least I sat in the Mig and performing engine test runs, which, after all, I hope qualifies me to talk about these things.
Have you ever tried to steer a heavy fighter aircraft on the runway at low speed when one engine is at 10 percent and the other suddenly goes and blocks at full military power with the "front wheel and the tails"? I guess the answer is no. He even used the chute!
When the engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, you could try everything but it won't work. Of course, the first thing to do is emergency shutdown - but it didn't work, as simple as that. And with such an engine a FMP even during a couple of seconds, you get quite an impetus, believe me, and a assymetric one at that.
Are you a member of investigation committee which just released findings regarding the plane crash? If not then please shutup and stop writing your immature view points and stuff about steerring a heavy fighter on the runway with one engine running, thrust asymmetry or when engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, nothing will work. You are just making anything worse. Thanks
By: martinez
- 28th April 2009 at 18:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed.
With the power of those 117S engine, its impossible to steer the aircraft in a strait line if one engine goes full and the other engine dont..
The fact that the engines on a Flanker are widely placed does not help at all.
It's all adios amigos and eject.
Thanks
The question here is:
Twin engined a/c like Su-27/35 takes off. During acceleration on the runway one engine shuts down or idle, other one is on FMP or AB. What will happen?
A. this situation immediately results into crash bcs of engine thrust assymetry.
B. aircraft maintain straight line and takes-off, fly and land with one engine running.
By: RSM55
- 28th April 2009 at 19:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Mr. RSM55, before we start calling names
I haven't called names (yet) but you have (at Frolov), which is quite strange, to say the least, for anyone working for MiG, Sukhoi, or any other Russian or Western or else aircraft manufacturer. Especially, as you said yourself, before knowing the facts.
my job for several years now is to ensure that something similar never happens to our pilots...At least I sat in the Mig and performing engine test runs, which, after all, I hope qualifies me to talk about these things.
Fascinating. Please do enlighten us and tell what MiG you "sat in" and how you knowledge of the technicalities and procedures enables you to such things as: I refuse to believe that due a engine malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft during a high speed taxiing. That is quite stupid, isnt it?
OR Why would he burn brakes to stop the aircraft immediately when the steerable front wheel and tails worked well
because no real just-over-the-job-board young technician would say something like that, especially if working for the RSK MiG, that had experienced exactly similar events at least 3 times in the last 15 years.
Are you a member of investigation committee which just released findings regarding the plane crash?
Of course, but you are neither. And you are passing value judgements while we are discussing probable technical aspects.
If not then please shutup and stop writing your immature view points and stuff about steerring a heavy fighter on the runway with one engine running, thrust asymmetry or when engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, nothing will work. You are just making anything worse. Thanks
You're welcome to enlighten us with any kind of new information, insights, points of view and technical terms that you seem totally lacking.
Удачи.
The question here is:
Twin engined a/c like Su-27/35 takes off. During acceleration on the runway one engine shuts down or idle, other one is on FMP or AB. What will happen?
A. this situation immediately results into crash bcs of engine thrust assymetry.
B. aircraft maintain straight line and takes-off, fly and land with one engine running.
Take your pick....
The way you put the question shows that you have no idea about engineering in general and aircraft operations in particular.
Depending on the aircraft a)type b)load c)wingspan d)airbrake area e)output power f)speed g)runway length h) engine thrust etc etc etc the situation would evolve either into A or B.
And if you're a real aeronautic engineer, you should at least know that an aircraft that is scheduled NOT to take off and does taxi runs for the first time NEVER has to take off, at least for safety reasons, especially with ONE engine, and fuel-engine control failures. And especially when people are living 300 m away from the runway, as it was the case.
To put it in a nutshell: you've just exposed yourself big time.
By: haavarla
- 28th April 2009 at 20:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The question here is:
Twin engined a/c like Su-27/35 takes off. During acceleration on the runway one engine shuts down or idle, other one is on FMP or AB. What will happen?
A. this situation immediately results into crash bcs of engine thrust assymetry.
B. aircraft maintain straight line and takes-off, fly and land with one engine running.
Take your pick....
Lats say Mr. Frolov acellerated up to 100 knots or what ever.
Then the FADEC failure kicks in, he drops the shute-apply brakes-trying to controll by rudders and nosewheel.
I think the wheel brake on the same side as the failure engine gives first away, and he simply can't maintain controll over the Su-35 anymore.
The aircraft wheel off and probably hit something off the runaway, rupture fuel tanks and fire engulfing the aircraft.
Only one thing left to do because it takes to much time to get off the tubes/cables/straps.... eject..
Posts: 699
By: CommanderJB - 28th April 2009 at 03:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ah, apologies, I'll have to pay closer attention in future. Too dazzled looking at the rest of the aircraft.It's heartening to hear that the aircraft was insured, but much less heartening to hear that it was a FADEC failure.
Also - I hesitate to ask given the rather unfortunate nature of that article - but what's a 'PMC unit', and what is FMP?
By: Anonymous - 28th April 2009 at 04:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, I am glad the pilot is ok..............accident happen from time to time.
That said, I doubt many here would be so gentile. If, a Lightning II or Typhoon had crashed..........
With all do respect............;)
By: Anonymous - 28th April 2009 at 04:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think you are being extremely positive. In your assessment of the Su-35's crash and the likely ramifications...........IMO
Posts: 409
By: RSM55 - 28th April 2009 at 08:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No I'm not, I'm just saying that this crash won't affect the overall programme (albeit it is certainly going to delay it because they will have to step up in- and post-prod. quality control at the engine manufacturer) but as it does not involve major redesigns, the discovery of an inherent design flaw or any permanent loss of cashflow I'm being cautiously optimistic.
As the latest more or less official news go, engine controls failed because of a production error at the engine factory (fuel flow controls badly installed), so whatever the computer said, the engine just didn't want to hear ;)
Besides, the "new" Su-35 programme has progressed at great and steady pace (for contemporary Russian standards) till now - don't see any reason why it shouldn't go forth - as the latest crash doesn't affect critical components (that's what we know now - of course it might change over time when new info pops up).
To repeat what Vitali Tyulkin, Sukhoi's official spokesman, told the Kommersant newspaper, the incident "happened at 16:55 local time during low-speed run trials. ". Another source at KnAAPO told that the tests were initially scheduled for Friday, but then postponed to Sunday because of engine problems. Apparently, they didn't fix them completely...
On a more humourous note, one could say that the plane just couldn't wait to get airborne :D
Posts: 409
By: RSM55 - 28th April 2009 at 08:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A F-35 or a Typhoon - never. We only do Rafale-bashing here :D
On a more serious note, test aircraft, pre-production aircraft, first serial aircraft sometimes crash, that's a fact, and it's a very stupid form of "international competition" (another word would fit here) to look at who did crash what when and rejoice at the tragedy of others.
On the other hand, if a series aircraft regularly crashes or experiences problems, that hints at some serious flaws and certainly can and must be discussed.
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th April 2009 at 09:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is because of the bloody camouflage. :) If a Tyffie or F-22 burns down, noone is gonna miss another dull gray bird differing only by serial applied. But Su-35 is something entirely different - all fanboys are shockingly asking - was it the desert painted splinter, the grey Ferris scheme, the green overall or the pink-painted one with flashy stars? :cool:
Oh no, THAT one? :eek:
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th April 2009 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, but then it doesnt make sense at all. Why would he burn brakes to stop the aircraft immediately when the steerable front wheel and tails worked well, he could stay on the runway, shut down the engine with emergency switches and engage the fire extinguishing system from the cockpit.
Now, they lost new SU-35 and pilot almost lost his life. So far, it doesnt sound like he was acting as a very skilled pilot unless there is more we do not know yet.
Posts: 1,403
By: Otaku - 28th April 2009 at 11:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mr. Frolov was called into work on Sunday on short notice- which made him mad!! The previous night he'd been reading Scooter's posts which made him really maaad!!
Fuming, he commences his high speed taxi trial, so aggressive on the thottle it comes off in his hand.....now he has to eject- and guess what- he's really, really MAAAAAAADD!!!
Posts: 6,186
By: Austin - 28th April 2009 at 11:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well before passing any judgment on the test pilot you need to get all the facts right , there can be n number of reason of such an accident , and calling a test pilot unskilled without having ful facts at your disposal is simply lame on your part.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th April 2009 at 12:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That`s exact the same I wanted to say that there is something more about that crash we do not know yet. Read my post twice before writting any judgement that impact me. I woudnt dare to say that Zhenya is an unskilled pilot, I bet he acted correctly under circumstances which caused that crash.
But so far,I refuse to believe that due a engine malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft during a high speed taxiing. That is quite stupid, isnt it?
I hope you got me right now.
Posts: 409
By: RSM55 - 28th April 2009 at 13:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Sir, I guess you're not a pilot, to say the least. You might even have never played a flight sim:
Have you ever tried to steer a heavy fighter aircraft on the runway at low speed when one engine is at 10 percent and the other suddenly goes and blocks at full military power with the "front wheel and the tails"? I guess the answer is no.
He even used the chute!
that doesn't run till the Polish border, you know.
When the engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, you could try everything but it won't work. Of course, the first thing to do is emergency shutdown - but it didn't work, as simple as that. And with such an engine a FMP even during a couple of seconds, you get quite an impetus, believe me, and a assymetric one at that.
It was not on fire while Frolov was in the cockpit, goddamit! It just went to FMP and maybe even AB. If it had caught fire, it would actually be a much better situation :D
First think about what you're saying before posting something like that, except when your prof. is test pilot, of course, which I seriously doubt after reading your post.
Posts: 438
By: Buddha - 28th April 2009 at 14:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft
I crashed a Lama for the same reason in 1980! Fuel pump malfunctioned and feed too much fuel into the engine! Anything man-made can fail, some at the worst possible times - and O' yes, I was a Military Test Pilot!!
Kudos to the pilot!
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 28th April 2009 at 14:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
LOL.
I do enjoy your post otaku, keep up the good work:)
Thanks
Posts: 5,396
By: djcross - 28th April 2009 at 14:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
When you push the "FIRE" button in a western jet, an electric valve shuts off fuel flow to the engine. This causes the engine to stop and isolates a fuel feed source for a potential fire. Do Russian jets have no equivalent to a "FIRE" button?
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 28th April 2009 at 14:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Agreed.
With the power of those 117S engine, its impossible to steer the aircraft in a strait line if one engine goes full and the other engine dont..
The fact that the engines on a Flanker are widely placed does not help at all.
It's all adios amigos and eject.
Thanks
By: Anonymous - 28th April 2009 at 16:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think we need to know a lot more. Before anyone here can make a serious judgement.........
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th April 2009 at 16:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dear Mr. RSM55, before we start calling names, I had to admit that I`m not a pilot nor a lama playing flight sims. If still curious who you are talking to, be aware that my job for several years now is to ensure that something similar never happens to our pilots and that means having enough knowledge of aircraft and engine systems (fortunately for the Mig and not Sukhoi) and preparing the aicraft to its first flight after heavy maintenance we are routinely executing. At least I sat in the Mig and performing engine test runs, which, after all, I hope qualifies me to talk about these things.
Are you a member of investigation committee which just released findings regarding the plane crash? If not then please shutup and stop writing your immature view points and stuff about steerring a heavy fighter on the runway with one engine running, thrust asymmetry or when engine controls and fuel injector are faulty, nothing will work. You are just making anything worse. Thanks
Best regards
martinez
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th April 2009 at 18:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The question here is:
Twin engined a/c like Su-27/35 takes off. During acceleration on the runway one engine shuts down or idle, other one is on FMP or AB. What will happen?
A. this situation immediately results into crash bcs of engine thrust assymetry.
B. aircraft maintain straight line and takes-off, fly and land with one engine running.
Take your pick....
Posts: 409
By: RSM55 - 28th April 2009 at 19:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I haven't called names (yet) but you have (at Frolov), which is quite strange, to say the least, for anyone working for MiG, Sukhoi, or any other Russian or Western or else aircraft manufacturer. Especially, as you said yourself, before knowing the facts.
Fascinating. Please do enlighten us and tell what MiG you "sat in" and how you knowledge of the technicalities and procedures enables you to such things as:
I refuse to believe that due a engine malfunction/fuel pump they lost an aircraft during a high speed taxiing. That is quite stupid, isnt it?
OR
Why would he burn brakes to stop the aircraft immediately when the steerable front wheel and tails worked well
because no real just-over-the-job-board young technician would say something like that, especially if working for the RSK MiG, that had experienced exactly similar events at least 3 times in the last 15 years.
Of course, but you are neither. And you are passing value judgements while we are discussing probable technical aspects.
You're welcome to enlighten us with any kind of new information, insights, points of view and technical terms that you seem totally lacking.
Удачи.
The way you put the question shows that you have no idea about engineering in general and aircraft operations in particular.
Depending on the aircraft a)type b)load c)wingspan d)airbrake area e)output power f)speed g)runway length h) engine thrust etc etc etc the situation would evolve either into A or B.
And if you're a real aeronautic engineer, you should at least know that an aircraft that is scheduled NOT to take off and does taxi runs for the first time NEVER has to take off, at least for safety reasons, especially with ONE engine, and fuel-engine control failures. And especially when people are living 300 m away from the runway, as it was the case.
To put it in a nutshell: you've just exposed yourself big time.
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 28th April 2009 at 20:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Lats say Mr. Frolov acellerated up to 100 knots or what ever.
Then the FADEC failure kicks in, he drops the shute-apply brakes-trying to controll by rudders and nosewheel.
I think the wheel brake on the same side as the failure engine gives first away, and he simply can't maintain controll over the Su-35 anymore.
The aircraft wheel off and probably hit something off the runaway, rupture fuel tanks and fire engulfing the aircraft.
Only one thing left to do because it takes to much time to get off the tubes/cables/straps.... eject..
Just my 2 cent...?
Thanks