By: Anonymous
- 28th April 2009 at 21:02Permalink- 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.
Sure sounds like a lot of speculation and little based on fact................Regardless, I think the question was a valid one. You are making alot of claims. Clearly, its not unreasonable to ask your background and/or source for your opinions.
By: martinez
- 28th April 2009 at 23:23Permalink- 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.....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..
I`m sorry not replying individualy every word you wrote as I do not see any particular reason why do you need me to enlighten you, as this would surely mean throwing a pea against the wall, especially after reading your "reasonable" reasoning I already feel enlighted and I don't need any more. We know how it is called like in English, so lets avoid it in the future.
To explain it again I wrote my opinion in the light of available information and rumours, whether it happened during take-off, high or low speed taxiing, at the beginning or end of the runway I honestly do not know. I`d rather wait for the official statement, but regarding engine thrust assymetry in case of engine failure I claim the Su-27/35 aircraft has enough authority in the MRK system and rudders controlled by pedals to compensate any yawing/banking moment from one engine running either on FMP or AB. Moreover, even if not applicable here when pilot decide to continue he can easily take-off, fly and land safely with one engine running on FMP, when other one shutdown. Once again I do not know facts about the crash, neither you. I was merely pointing out to you and your fishy comments on this thread that we have nothing in evidence yet and it applies especially as well for someone living 300 m away from the runway. I repeat again for you what I said earlier, I would never dare to doubt Frolov skills and I never called him names or anything else. He acted according to appropriate emergency procedures under circumstances we do not know. Then please stop taking my words out of context, bashing around and judging by rumours in circulation that anything different said here as being wrong.
Martinez
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 28th April 2009 at 23:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIK, Frolov is one of the best (or the best) Russian test pilots. If he decided to eject, very likely the plane was doomed.
There was this British bloke Graham Wardell, a very experienced test pilot having flown dozens of types, actually the first non-American to ever fly the F-117 Nighthawk. Despite of his vast experience, he has sadly lost his life in an unfortunate accident in Bratislava, Slovakia in 1999 where he has flown his Hawk 200 into the ground after a fatal pilot error. Even the most experienced pilots are just humans and can make a mistake.
I personally don't quite see why one engine running at full power and another one almost at idle should result in yawing/banking moment too high to be compensated by conventional control surfaces. There are numerous cases of an aircraft flying or even taking off with just one engine running, so why suddenly this is deemed so impossible? I am with Martinez on this, we might be missing something important about this accident.
Nevertheless, I'd hate to point finger at Yevgeniy Frolov without having any relevant information. Glad he is okay, spoke to him once.
By: Samudragupta
- 28th April 2009 at 23:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the aircraft is moving slowly (below Vmc; mc=minimum control), there won't be enough air-flow over the tail surfaces and hence insufficient rudder authority to compensate for the asymmetric thrust.
I'm guessing that all the engine-out take-offs being referred to have occurred when the engine failed after passing Vmc.
By: martinez
- 29th April 2009 at 00:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the aircraft is moving slowly (below Vmc; mc=minimum control), there won't be enough air-flow over the tail surfaces and hence insufficient rudder authority to compensate for the asymmetric thrust.
I'm guessing that all the engine-out take-offs being referred to have occurred when the engine failed after passing Vmc.
In case of the Vmc aircrafts are equipped with steerable nose gears.
For example: Su-27 pilot applies 1/3 opposite pedal force during accelerating and take-off to balance the engine thrust assymetry when one engine set to FMP, other one idle/failure. Regarding Su-35 crash, circumstances could be different of course.
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.
It makes sense to me, especially when it happened at the end of the runway, not able to shut down the engine but still with speed above 50 knots....
New
Posts: 812
By: echonine
- 29th April 2009 at 01:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I personally don't quite see why one engine running at full power and another one almost at idle should result in yawing/banking moment too high to be compensated by conventional control surfaces. There are numerous cases of an aircraft flying or even taking off with just one engine running, so why suddenly this is deemed so impossible? I am with Martinez on this, we might be missing something important about this accident.
Those engines have TVC - it might have provided so much directionally-incorrect / unneeded thrust that it might have violently turned the plane and maybe even caused it to yaw or roll onto a wing and destroy it - followed the by whole airplane.
By: Himanshu
- 29th April 2009 at 05:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guys.. Martinez is a well known and respected ON THE JOB professional.. he is the aircraft maintenance engineer for the Czech(?) Air Force.. He along with MrDetonator are what we have like in djcross..
Any idea howz MrDetonator doing these days.. been long read anything from him..
By: QuantumFX
- 29th April 2009 at 08:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guys.. Martinez is a well known and respected ON THE JOB professional.. he is the aircraft maintenance engineer for the Czech(?) Air Force.. He along with MrDetonator are what we have like in djcross..
Any idea howz MrDetonator doing these days.. been long read anything from him..
Definitely agreed on that.
I think he works for/with the the Slovak Air-force
By: haavarla
- 29th April 2009 at 09:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those engines have TVC - it might have provided so much directionally-incorrect / unneeded thrust that it might have violently turned the plane and maybe even caused it to yaw or roll onto a wing and destroy it - followed the by whole airplane.
Hmm, havent those TVC a separate automatic failsafe device that postition them in normal position.
In case of a failure on the TVC system in flight..?
I remember reading something about it.
B.t.w how many reported acidents are recorded regarding the Russian made TVC?
It means more costly maintaince but nevertheless,
I think they have a quite good operational history record..
By: haavarla
- 29th April 2009 at 09:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In case of the Vmc aircrafts are equipped with steerable nose gears.
For example: Su-27 pilot applies 1/3 opposite pedal force during accelerating and take-off to balance the engine thrust assymetry when one engine set to FMP, other one idle/failure. Regarding Su-35 crash, circumstances could be different of course.
It makes sense to me, especially when it happened at the end of the runway, not able to shut down the engine but still with speed above 50 knots....
Yep, agreed.
But wheelbraking on a normal fueled up Su-35 weight about 17.000kg+- dry, so we are talking about a total 20-23.000kg here..
That's not an ideal aircraft to do some serious wheelbrakes stunts on, and with one engine on full and the end of the runway coming up fast... Try to think fast!:)
The beating those wheel brakes receive are serious, and sometimes the runway are covered with snow/ice..
Isn't that why they(Su-27/30/35) have the doubble shut that they use every time on landing?
Edit: It's also interesting with the new airbrake system that's on those verticals now..
How will this affect reducing the airspeed on landing, when using the it to control the aircraft at the same time?
Thanks
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 29th April 2009 at 10:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think he works for/with the the Slovak Air-force
Correct, Slovak AF. The MiGs he was talking about are our few MiG-29 Fulcrums (20 airframes or something like this).
By: RSM55
- 29th April 2009 at 14:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, martinez, I apologize if I've hurt your feelings and professional pride (seriously), but I've been confronted much too often (as many forum members here as well) with usubstantiated claims/opinions coming from folks who have no idea what a rudder is. That's why when you wrote such things as "it's a stupid thing to do" or proposed a binary "take off or veer off" question I've seen the red lamp switch on :)
Sorry.
Let's resume this conversation on neutral terms.
To explain it again I wrote my opinion in the light of available information and rumours, whether it happened during take-off, high or low speed taxiing, at the beginning or end of the runway I honestly do not know. I`d rather wait for the official statement
The official statement was that it was during taxiing.
but regarding engine thrust assymetry in case of engine failure I claim the Su-27/35 aircraft has enough authority in the MRK system and rudders controlled by pedals to compensate any yawing/banking moment from one engine running either on FMP or AB.
You know more than I do about this, so I won't comment.
Moreover, even if not applicable here when pilot decide to continue he can easily take-off, fly and land safely with one engine running on FMP, when other one shutdown.
Sure, no one questions that. The problem is a) you have to have enough runway in front of you or gather speed real fast b) I doubt I would always try to take off with a rather big fighter jet that does not respond to my authorities and whose main controls apparently failed (because I don't believe that Frolov made the same mistake as any stupid driving license candidate who brakes first while still on the gas pedal :D and therefore assume he tried an emergency shutdown first).
applies especially as well for someone living 300 m away from the runway.
You didn't get me here: I was saying they were people living 300 m away there, so a take-off would have posed a serious hazard for them as well.
As for how an engine main refuse to react or react wrongly to any inputs from the cockpit, even a emergency shutdown, I think we all know how it could happen when combined with a computer controls error/false data fed into the "ASU" - after the ominous Airbus accident in Irkutsk, for example.
By: medal64
- 30th April 2009 at 19:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe It's a little bad translation (google translator) but it's giving an idea about the crash.But I think something mixed about fifth generation aircarft!!!
Supersekretny Su-35 lost altitude marriage helm
Causes of the disaster became known in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, occurred with a new pride of the Air Force
Remember, Sunday, April 26, when tested at the airfield "Dzemgi" Aviation Industrial Corporation Sukhoi in Komsomolsk-na-na-Amure broke the fifth-generation fighter Su-35.
This is the secret project of the Russian aircraft industry, and all that relates to this plane - strictest state secret.Therefore, there speculation on the causes of the disaster. Virtually all media, including the "free press", the version presented on that, trying to fly his airplane at the end of the runway was confronted with one obstacle, resulting in a totally collapsed and burned.
But all was the not the case. Или, по крайней мере, не совсем так. Or, at least not quite so.That's what told the correspondent of "joint venture" a senior source "SP" for aviation.
The plane before take-off was dramatic on the program, all tests and tests on the ground. He was thoroughly prepared for the first demonstration flight, which was nominated for the afternoon of Sunday, April 26.According to team manager test pilot Yevgeny Frolov disbanded fighter until the required speed, and when the time to pull the lever on the control itself, it did not and stood Coloma. Ее просто заклинило. Its just jammed. That is the situation: on the aircraft speed has a huge runway, but could not fly. During the short time that the pilot was released, he tried to "revive" control knob, but useless. Счет шел на секунды. Bill went to the second.Towards quickly pull the metal mesh fence airport.Then the pilot Yevgeny Frolov tried to do everything to pay the rate, and only after that, literally at the last moment, ejected.Fighter, losing much speed, the impact on the metal grid on fire, but not collapsed, as the written media.Tearing fire engines put out a fire quickly.
According to our source, the damage of the fighter is not so serious to talk about his complete loss. Basic units and the engine is fine. And, most likely, after the appropriate repairs, he will be able to continue the test flights.
But recent days after an incident at the plant there is gloom.Moreover, the staff became aware that the Americans had expressed doubts that the Russian aircraft did not fly, so there are a lot of technical shortcomings.
The company dealt with the incident, a special commission from Moscow. But the most disappointing team of the factory that because of this accident, they will not receive bonuses.
As we wrote "Free Press", all built three new Su-35. In the Sunday crash test copy with serial number on the board "03."
The development of modern fighter aircraft is carried out jointly with India. Project cost - $ 10 billion. This is planned to cover the expenses on an equal footing.Not so long ago, a similar agreement on the joint development of fifth generation fighter aircraft was signed with Brazil.
Fifth-generation fighter aircraft - one of the most pressing topics of contemporary arms race. According to test pilot Michael Vlasenko, requirements for aircraft in this class and in the West and in Russia about the same subject: versatility, that is highly effective in the defeat of air, land, surface and underwater targets; a radical reduction in the visibility of the aircraft radar and infrared ranges ability to exercise vserakursny shelling targets in the air near the battle, as well as to multi-missile firing in the conduct of the battle at long range, on-board automation control and information systems, jamming, etc.
United States ahead of Russia in building the fifth generation fighter aircraft.15 December 2005 in the United States came into operation the first squadron of planes F-22A "Reptor. But these machines were too expensive and do not qualify for mass production. The price of each F-22 - 140 million dollars, and the whole program is worth 65 billion. Despite the astronomical price falls and the Americans.
Thus, the miracle of aircraft and the peak of design and technological thought Americans F-22 dropped in December 2004 during testing at Nellis Air Force air base in Nevada.They were resumed shortly after careful analysis of the causes of the disaster.Then the Commission has concluded that, "confident in the project and the testing can continue. Edwards Air Force Base в пустыне Мохаве. But in March 26, 2009 split-second car to 35 kilometers to the north-east of the military base, Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. Пилот погиб. Pilot killed.
By: haavarla
- 30th April 2009 at 20:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe It's a little bad translation (google translator) but it's giving an idea about the crash.But I think something mixed about fifth generation aircarft!!!
Supersekretny Su-35 lost altitude marriage helm
Causes of the disaster became known in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, occurred with a new pride of the Air Force
Remember, Sunday, April 26, when tested at the airfield "Dzemgi" Aviation Industrial Corporation Sukhoi in Komsomolsk-na-na-Amure broke the fifth-generation fighter Su-35.
This is the secret project of the Russian aircraft industry, and all that relates to this plane - strictest state secret.Therefore, there speculation on the causes of the disaster. Virtually all media, including the "free press", the version presented on that, trying to fly his airplane at the end of the runway was confronted with one obstacle, resulting in a totally collapsed and burned.
But all was the not the case. Или, по крайней мере, не совсем так. Or, at least not quite so.That's what told the correspondent of "joint venture" a senior source "SP" for aviation.
The plane before take-off was dramatic on the program, all tests and tests on the ground. He was thoroughly prepared for the first demonstration flight, which was nominated for the afternoon of Sunday, April 26.According to team manager test pilot Yevgeny Frolov disbanded fighter until the required speed, and when the time to pull the lever on the control itself, it did not and stood Coloma. Ее просто заклинило. Its just jammed. That is the situation: on the aircraft speed has a huge runway, but could not fly. During the short time that the pilot was released, he tried to "revive" control knob, but useless. Счет шел на секунды. Bill went to the second.Towards quickly pull the metal mesh fence airport.Then the pilot Yevgeny Frolov tried to do everything to pay the rate, and only after that, literally at the last moment, ejected.Fighter, losing much speed, the impact on the metal grid on fire, but not collapsed, as the written media.Tearing fire engines put out a fire quickly.
According to our source, the damage of the fighter is not so serious to talk about his complete loss. Basic units and the engine is fine. And, most likely, after the appropriate repairs, he will be able to continue the test flights.
But recent days after an incident at the plant there is gloom.Moreover, the staff became aware that the Americans had expressed doubts that the Russian aircraft did not fly, so there are a lot of technical shortcomings.
The company dealt with the incident, a special commission from Moscow. But the most disappointing team of the factory that because of this accident, they will not receive bonuses.
As we wrote "Free Press", all built three new Su-35. In the Sunday crash test copy with serial number on the board "03."
The development of modern fighter aircraft is carried out jointly with India. Project cost - $ 10 billion. This is planned to cover the expenses on an equal footing.Not so long ago, a similar agreement on the joint development of fifth generation fighter aircraft was signed with Brazil.
Fifth-generation fighter aircraft - one of the most pressing topics of contemporary arms race. According to test pilot Michael Vlasenko, requirements for aircraft in this class and in the West and in Russia about the same subject: versatility, that is highly effective in the defeat of air, land, surface and underwater targets; a radical reduction in the visibility of the aircraft radar and infrared ranges ability to exercise vserakursny shelling targets in the air near the battle, as well as to multi-missile firing in the conduct of the battle at long range, on-board automation control and information systems, jamming, etc.
United States ahead of Russia in building the fifth generation fighter aircraft.15 December 2005 in the United States came into operation the first squadron of planes F-22A "Reptor. But these machines were too expensive and do not qualify for mass production. The price of each F-22 - 140 million dollars, and the whole program is worth 65 billion. Despite the astronomical price falls and the Americans.
Thus, the miracle of aircraft and the peak of design and technological thought Americans F-22 dropped in December 2004 during testing at Nellis Air Force air base in Nevada.They were resumed shortly after careful analysis of the causes of the disaster.Then the Commission has concluded that, "confident in the project and the testing can continue. Edwards Air Force Base в пустыне Мохаве. But in March 26, 2009 split-second car to 35 kilometers to the north-east of the military base, Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. Пилот погиб. Pilot killed.
If the 903 really are reparable, that's good news:)
I remember seeing a clip of an Su-27 belly landing on the runway, why i don't know.
But a few hour later they liftet the aircraft up and extended the gear and from what i could see there was wery little damage on the fuselage...
That allue/titanium airframe sure can take a beating.
By: Flanker_man
- 30th April 2009 at 21:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember seeing a clip of an Su-27 belly landing on the runway, why i don't know.
But a few hour later they liftet the aircraft up and extended the gear and from what i could see there was wery little damage on the fuselage...
Thanks
Russian Knights Su-27 (15 Blue) at an airshow in Bratislava in 1997 - the pilot forgot to select gear down.
The aircraft was jacked up, the gear lowered - and they flew it out a few days later.
There's video of it somewhere - Google Su-27 Bratislava.....
By: martinez
- 1st May 2009 at 18:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that we all got fooled by press announcements. If this source below is reliable and Frolov was short on take-off due to FCS failure, but not veered of the runway but hit the raising roll-stop then I think the damage to bort 03 is quite reparable.
When I first time looked the date the crash happened there is one thing that still keeps me wondering about. Why are they rushing to fly that fighter on Sunday? :confused:
copy&paste Однако все обстояло не так. Или, по крайней мере, не совсем так. Вот что рассказал корреспонденту «СП» высокопоставленный источник «СП» на авиазаводе.
- Самолет до этого драматического взлета прошел по программе все испытания и тесты на земле. Затем его тщательно подготовили к первому демонстрационному полету, который и был назначен на вторую половину дня в воскресенье, 26 апреля. По команде диспетчера летчик-испытатель Евгений Фролов разогнал истребитель до необходимой скорости и когда наступил момент тянуть ручку управления на себя, она не поддалась и стояла колом. Ее просто заклинило. То есть сложилась ситуация: самолет на огромной скорости несется по взлетной полосе, а взлететь не может. За то короткое время, что было отпущено пилоту, он пытался «оживить» ручку управления, но бесполезно. Счет шел на секунды. Навстречу быстро надвигалась металлическая сетка ограждения аэродрома. Тогда пилот Евгений Фролов постарался сделать все, чтобы погасить скорость и только после этого, буквально в последний миг, катапультировался. Истребитель, значительно потеряв скорость, от удара об металлическую сетку загорелся, но не разрушился, как писали СМИ. Примчавшиеся пожарные машины быстро загасили начинавшийся пожар.
По утверждению нашего источника, повреждения у истребителя не настолько серьезные, чтобы говорить о его полной потере. Основные узлы и двигатель в порядке. И, скорее всего, после соответствующего ремонта он сможет продолжить испытательные полеты.
By: martinez
- 1st May 2009 at 18:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, martinez, I apologize if I've hurt your feelings and professional pride (seriously), .
Do not make up your mind about my feelings and professional pride, you were not even hard enough to hurt them ;)
..and let us continue to discuss the crash in a civilized manner.
By: martinez
- 1st May 2009 at 18:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I remember seeing a clip of an Su-27 belly landing on the runway, why i don't know.
But a few hour later they liftet the aircraft up and extended the gear and from what i could see there was wery little damage on the fuselage...
That allue/titanium airframe sure can take a beating.
Thanks
Ken is right, pilot forgot to put wheels down, but nothing dramatical happened, a few thousands of scared airshow visitors, some sparks, smoke and the Flanker skating on the runway. It stopped exactly in front of me. I`ve somewhere the video from the whole wheel-less landing procedure.
By: Anonymous - 28th April 2009 at 21:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sure sounds like a lot of speculation and little based on fact................Regardless, I think the question was a valid one. You are making alot of claims. Clearly, its not unreasonable to ask your background and/or source for your opinions.
Posts: 1,245
By: Rodolfo - 28th April 2009 at 21:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AFAIK, Frolov is one of the best (or the best) Russian test pilots. If he decided to eject, very likely the plane was doomed.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 28th April 2009 at 23:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I`m sorry not replying individualy every word you wrote as I do not see any particular reason why do you need me to enlighten you, as this would surely mean throwing a pea against the wall, especially after reading your "reasonable" reasoning I already feel enlighted and I don't need any more. We know how it is called like in English, so lets avoid it in the future.
To explain it again I wrote my opinion in the light of available information and rumours, whether it happened during take-off, high or low speed taxiing, at the beginning or end of the runway I honestly do not know. I`d rather wait for the official statement, but regarding engine thrust assymetry in case of engine failure I claim the Su-27/35 aircraft has enough authority in the MRK system and rudders controlled by pedals to compensate any yawing/banking moment from one engine running either on FMP or AB. Moreover, even if not applicable here when pilot decide to continue he can easily take-off, fly and land safely with one engine running on FMP, when other one shutdown. Once again I do not know facts about the crash, neither you. I was merely pointing out to you and your fishy comments on this thread that we have nothing in evidence yet and it applies especially as well for someone living 300 m away from the runway. I repeat again for you what I said earlier, I would never dare to doubt Frolov skills and I never called him names or anything else. He acted according to appropriate emergency procedures under circumstances we do not know. Then please stop taking my words out of context, bashing around and judging by rumours in circulation that anything different said here as being wrong.
Martinez
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 28th April 2009 at 23:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There was this British bloke Graham Wardell, a very experienced test pilot having flown dozens of types, actually the first non-American to ever fly the F-117 Nighthawk. Despite of his vast experience, he has sadly lost his life in an unfortunate accident in Bratislava, Slovakia in 1999 where he has flown his Hawk 200 into the ground after a fatal pilot error. Even the most experienced pilots are just humans and can make a mistake.I personally don't quite see why one engine running at full power and another one almost at idle should result in yawing/banking moment too high to be compensated by conventional control surfaces. There are numerous cases of an aircraft flying or even taking off with just one engine running, so why suddenly this is deemed so impossible? I am with Martinez on this, we might be missing something important about this accident.
Nevertheless, I'd hate to point finger at Yevgeniy Frolov without having any relevant information. Glad he is okay, spoke to him once.
Posts: 83
By: Samudragupta - 28th April 2009 at 23:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the aircraft is moving slowly (below Vmc; mc=minimum control), there won't be enough air-flow over the tail surfaces and hence insufficient rudder authority to compensate for the asymmetric thrust.
I'm guessing that all the engine-out take-offs being referred to have occurred when the engine failed after passing Vmc.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 29th April 2009 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In case of the Vmc aircrafts are equipped with steerable nose gears.
For example: Su-27 pilot applies 1/3 opposite pedal force during accelerating and take-off to balance the engine thrust assymetry when one engine set to FMP, other one idle/failure. Regarding Su-35 crash, circumstances could be different of course.
It makes sense to me, especially when it happened at the end of the runway, not able to shut down the engine but still with speed above 50 knots....
Posts: 812
By: echonine - 29th April 2009 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Those engines have TVC - it might have provided so much directionally-incorrect / unneeded thrust that it might have violently turned the plane and maybe even caused it to yaw or roll onto a wing and destroy it - followed the by whole airplane.
Posts: 600
By: Himanshu - 29th April 2009 at 05:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Guys.. Martinez is a well known and respected ON THE JOB professional.. he is the aircraft maintenance engineer for the Czech(?) Air Force.. He along with MrDetonator are what we have like in djcross..
Any idea howz MrDetonator doing these days.. been long read anything from him..
Posts: 1,912
By: QuantumFX - 29th April 2009 at 08:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Definitely agreed on that.
I think he works for/with the the Slovak Air-force
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 29th April 2009 at 09:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Hmm, havent those TVC a separate automatic failsafe device that postition them in normal position.
In case of a failure on the TVC system in flight..?
I remember reading something about it.
B.t.w how many reported acidents are recorded regarding the Russian made TVC?
It means more costly maintaince but nevertheless,
I think they have a quite good operational history record..
Thanks
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 29th April 2009 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yep, agreed.
But wheelbraking on a normal fueled up Su-35 weight about 17.000kg+- dry, so we are talking about a total 20-23.000kg here..
That's not an ideal aircraft to do some serious wheelbrakes stunts on, and with one engine on full and the end of the runway coming up fast...
Try to think fast!:)
The beating those wheel brakes receive are serious, and sometimes the runway are covered with snow/ice..
Isn't that why they(Su-27/30/35) have the doubble shut that they use every time on landing?
Edit: It's also interesting with the new airbrake system that's on those verticals now..
How will this affect reducing the airspeed on landing, when using the it to control the aircraft at the same time?
Thanks
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 29th April 2009 at 10:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Correct, Slovak AF. The MiGs he was talking about are our few MiG-29 Fulcrums (20 airframes or something like this).Posts: 409
By: RSM55 - 29th April 2009 at 14:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ok, martinez, I apologize if I've hurt your feelings and professional pride (seriously), but I've been confronted much too often (as many forum members here as well) with usubstantiated claims/opinions coming from folks who have no idea what a rudder is. That's why when you wrote such things as "it's a stupid thing to do" or proposed a binary "take off or veer off" question I've seen the red lamp switch on :)
Sorry.
Let's resume this conversation on neutral terms.
The official statement was that it was during taxiing.
You know more than I do about this, so I won't comment.
Sure, no one questions that. The problem is a) you have to have enough runway in front of you or gather speed real fast b) I doubt I would always try to take off with a rather big fighter jet that does not respond to my authorities and whose main controls apparently failed (because I don't believe that Frolov made the same mistake as any stupid driving license candidate who brakes first while still on the gas pedal :D and therefore assume he tried an emergency shutdown first).
You didn't get me here: I was saying they were people living 300 m away there, so a take-off would have posed a serious hazard for them as well.
As for how an engine main refuse to react or react wrongly to any inputs from the cockpit, even a emergency shutdown, I think we all know how it could happen when combined with a computer controls error/false data fed into the "ASU" - after the ominous Airbus accident in Irkutsk, for example.
Posts: 1,114
By: medal64 - 30th April 2009 at 19:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe It's a little bad translation (google translator) but it's giving an idea about the crash.But I think something mixed about fifth generation aircarft!!!
Supersekretny Su-35 lost altitude marriage helm
Causes of the disaster became known in Komsomolsk-on-Amur, occurred with a new pride of the Air Force
Remember, Sunday, April 26, when tested at the airfield "Dzemgi" Aviation Industrial Corporation Sukhoi in Komsomolsk-na-na-Amure broke the fifth-generation fighter Su-35.
This is the secret project of the Russian aircraft industry, and all that relates to this plane - strictest state secret.Therefore, there speculation on the causes of the disaster. Virtually all media, including the "free press", the version presented on that, trying to fly his airplane at the end of the runway was confronted with one obstacle, resulting in a totally collapsed and burned.
But all was the not the case. Или, по крайней мере, не совсем так. Or, at least not quite so.That's what told the correspondent of "joint venture" a senior source "SP" for aviation.
The plane before take-off was dramatic on the program, all tests and tests on the ground. He was thoroughly prepared for the first demonstration flight, which was nominated for the afternoon of Sunday, April 26.According to team manager test pilot Yevgeny Frolov disbanded fighter until the required speed, and when the time to pull the lever on the control itself, it did not and stood Coloma. Ее просто заклинило. Its just jammed. That is the situation: on the aircraft speed has a huge runway, but could not fly. During the short time that the pilot was released, he tried to "revive" control knob, but useless. Счет шел на секунды. Bill went to the second.Towards quickly pull the metal mesh fence airport.Then the pilot Yevgeny Frolov tried to do everything to pay the rate, and only after that, literally at the last moment, ejected.Fighter, losing much speed, the impact on the metal grid on fire, but not collapsed, as the written media.Tearing fire engines put out a fire quickly.
According to our source, the damage of the fighter is not so serious to talk about his complete loss. Basic units and the engine is fine. And, most likely, after the appropriate repairs, he will be able to continue the test flights.
But recent days after an incident at the plant there is gloom.Moreover, the staff became aware that the Americans had expressed doubts that the Russian aircraft did not fly, so there are a lot of technical shortcomings.
The company dealt with the incident, a special commission from Moscow. But the most disappointing team of the factory that because of this accident, they will not receive bonuses.
As we wrote "Free Press", all built three new Su-35. In the Sunday crash test copy with serial number on the board "03."
The development of modern fighter aircraft is carried out jointly with India. Project cost - $ 10 billion. This is planned to cover the expenses on an equal footing.Not so long ago, a similar agreement on the joint development of fifth generation fighter aircraft was signed with Brazil.
Fifth-generation fighter aircraft - one of the most pressing topics of contemporary arms race. According to test pilot Michael Vlasenko, requirements for aircraft in this class and in the West and in Russia about the same subject: versatility, that is highly effective in the defeat of air, land, surface and underwater targets; a radical reduction in the visibility of the aircraft radar and infrared ranges ability to exercise vserakursny shelling targets in the air near the battle, as well as to multi-missile firing in the conduct of the battle at long range, on-board automation control and information systems, jamming, etc.
United States ahead of Russia in building the fifth generation fighter aircraft.15 December 2005 in the United States came into operation the first squadron of planes F-22A "Reptor. But these machines were too expensive and do not qualify for mass production. The price of each F-22 - 140 million dollars, and the whole program is worth 65 billion. Despite the astronomical price falls and the Americans.
Thus, the miracle of aircraft and the peak of design and technological thought Americans F-22 dropped in December 2004 during testing at Nellis Air Force air base in Nevada.They were resumed shortly after careful analysis of the causes of the disaster.Then the Commission has concluded that, "confident in the project and the testing can continue. Edwards Air Force Base в пустыне Мохаве. But in March 26, 2009 split-second car to 35 kilometers to the north-east of the military base, Edwards Air Force Base in the Mojave Desert. Пилот погиб. Pilot killed.
Source: Site «Free Press», www.aviaport.ru
Author: Dmitry Latypov
Published: 30.04.2009, 16:56
Posts: 6,441
By: haavarla - 30th April 2009 at 20:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Holy cow..
Google translator suck big time!:(
If the 903 really are reparable, that's good news:)
I remember seeing a clip of an Su-27 belly landing on the runway, why i don't know.
But a few hour later they liftet the aircraft up and extended the gear and from what i could see there was wery little damage on the fuselage...
That allue/titanium airframe sure can take a beating.
Thanks
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 30th April 2009 at 21:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Russian Knights Su-27 (15 Blue) at an airshow in Bratislava in 1997 - the pilot forgot to select gear down.
The aircraft was jacked up, the gear lowered - and they flew it out a few days later.
There's video of it somewhere - Google Su-27 Bratislava.....
Ken
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 1st May 2009 at 18:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It seems that we all got fooled by press announcements. If this source below is reliable and Frolov was short on take-off due to FCS failure, but not veered of the runway but hit the raising roll-stop then I think the damage to bort 03 is quite reparable.
When I first time looked the date the crash happened there is one thing that still keeps me wondering about. Why are they rushing to fly that fighter on Sunday? :confused:
copy&paste
Однако все обстояло не так. Или, по крайней мере, не совсем так. Вот что рассказал корреспонденту «СП» высокопоставленный источник «СП» на авиазаводе.
- Самолет до этого драматического взлета прошел по программе все испытания и тесты на земле. Затем его тщательно подготовили к первому демонстрационному полету, который и был назначен на вторую половину дня в воскресенье, 26 апреля. По команде диспетчера летчик-испытатель Евгений Фролов разогнал истребитель до необходимой скорости и когда наступил момент тянуть ручку управления на себя, она не поддалась и стояла колом. Ее просто заклинило. То есть сложилась ситуация: самолет на огромной скорости несется по взлетной полосе, а взлететь не может. За то короткое время, что было отпущено пилоту, он пытался «оживить» ручку управления, но бесполезно. Счет шел на секунды. Навстречу быстро надвигалась металлическая сетка ограждения аэродрома. Тогда пилот Евгений Фролов постарался сделать все, чтобы погасить скорость и только после этого, буквально в последний миг, катапультировался. Истребитель, значительно потеряв скорость, от удара об металлическую сетку загорелся, но не разрушился, как писали СМИ. Примчавшиеся пожарные машины быстро загасили начинавшийся пожар.
По утверждению нашего источника, повреждения у истребителя не настолько серьезные, чтобы говорить о его полной потере. Основные узлы и двигатель в порядке. И, скорее всего, после соответствующего ремонта он сможет продолжить испытательные полеты.
source
http://svpressa.ru/issue/news.php?id=8103
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 1st May 2009 at 18:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Do not make up your mind about my feelings and professional pride, you were not even hard enough to hurt them ;)
..and let us continue to discuss the crash in a civilized manner.
Posts: 1,189
By: martinez - 1st May 2009 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ken is right, pilot forgot to put wheels down, but nothing dramatical happened, a few thousands of scared airshow visitors, some sparks, smoke and the Flanker skating on the runway. It stopped exactly in front of me. I`ve somewhere the video from the whole wheel-less landing procedure.
Youtube video is showing only the end part....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqiArXOodo4
Posts: 3,652
By: Flanker_man - 1st May 2009 at 20:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think it was supposed to take part in the flypast over Moscow on 9 May..
(At least Sukhoi/KnAAPO was 'hoping' to have it ready in time...)
Maybe that is why???
Ken