Emergency power ?
Probably a ram air turbine, that pops out and looks like a small propeller.
Probably a ram air turbine, that pops out and looks like a small propeller.
Plane Crash In Scottsdale Kills 6
- Thread starter billt460
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Emergency power ?
Probably a ram air turbine, that pops out and looks like a small propeller.
No, it's Hydrazine. At least according to this.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23417/why-is-hydrazine-used-to-power-the-f-16s-epu
"The EPU of F-16 is fueled with a monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which contains 70% hydrazine (N 2 H 4
N2H4) and 30% water, by weight."
Emergency power ?
Probably a ram air turbine, that pops out and looks like a small propeller.
No, it's Hydrazine. At least according to this.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/23417/why-is-hydrazine-used-to-power-the-f-16s-epu
"The EPU of F-16 is fueled with a monopropellant hydrazine mixture, H-70, which contains 70% hydrazine (N 2 H 4
N2H4) and 30% water, by weight."
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I remember a horrific video of a B-52 pilot doing low level demo flying. Got too slow with too much bank angle and what for a BUFF would practically be Nape of the Earth altitude. Disasterous.
And the guy who spent a fortune building a scale model, and repeated the incident near perfectly.
I remember a horrific video of a B-52 pilot doing low level demo flying. Got too slow with too much bank angle and what for a BUFF would practically be Nape of the Earth altitude. Disasterous.
And the guy who spent a fortune building a scale model, and repeated the incident near perfectly.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Astro, is it true that F-16's, (and perhaps some other model fighters), have small Hydrazine tanks for emergency power? If so that would make them pretty dangerous to start wandering around right after a crash like this one. That stuff is really toxic and dangerous.
Yes - and I see that you answered your own question.
There are lots of good reasons to avoid wandering around a crash site. Composite materials, especially carbon fiber, give off noxious fumes and insidious particulates. Interior materials, while flame resistant, are similar. Batteries can smolder and explode. Military planes often have "CADs" - "Cartridge Actuated Devices" - which operate ejections seats, allow ordnance to be jettisoned, drop tanks to be dropped, etc. There may be unexpended CADs exposed to fire that are on the verge of cooking off and exploding. Survival flares and other pyrotechnic devices are present in larger airplanes.
Fighters can often have ammo, ordnance, and flares on board that are all dangerous after the crash...
I wouldn't get too near any crash site, but particularly a military one.
Astro, is it true that F-16's, (and perhaps some other model fighters), have small Hydrazine tanks for emergency power? If so that would make them pretty dangerous to start wandering around right after a crash like this one. That stuff is really toxic and dangerous.
Yes - and I see that you answered your own question.
There are lots of good reasons to avoid wandering around a crash site. Composite materials, especially carbon fiber, give off noxious fumes and insidious particulates. Interior materials, while flame resistant, are similar. Batteries can smolder and explode. Military planes often have "CADs" - "Cartridge Actuated Devices" - which operate ejections seats, allow ordnance to be jettisoned, drop tanks to be dropped, etc. There may be unexpended CADs exposed to fire that are on the verge of cooking off and exploding. Survival flares and other pyrotechnic devices are present in larger airplanes.
Fighters can often have ammo, ordnance, and flares on board that are all dangerous after the crash...
I wouldn't get too near any crash site, but particularly a military one.
Originally Posted By: billt460
Similar to this, except for the fact it was running fine right up until it hit the ground.
[ redundant video omitted ]
Is the left engine dead? It sure spun like a top when it stalled - more than a complete turn in a few hundred feet ....
Similar to this, except for the fact it was running fine right up until it hit the ground.
[ redundant video omitted ]
Is the left engine dead? It sure spun like a top when it stalled - more than a complete turn in a few hundred feet ....
Originally Posted By: Win
Is the left engine dead? It sure spun like a top when it stalled - more than a complete turn in a few hundred feet ....
You can hear one of the engines backfiring continually. Obviously not producing adequate power. While the other sounds like it's running at full throttle. The pilot then begins a bank that continues to increase. The aircraft then stalls and spins in. It's hard to tell which engine was malfunctioning. But it didn't matter because the aircraft was too slow entering the turn. (Much like the other 2). All 3 had similar results. A non survivable crash.
Is the left engine dead? It sure spun like a top when it stalled - more than a complete turn in a few hundred feet ....
You can hear one of the engines backfiring continually. Obviously not producing adequate power. While the other sounds like it's running at full throttle. The pilot then begins a bank that continues to increase. The aircraft then stalls and spins in. It's hard to tell which engine was malfunctioning. But it didn't matter because the aircraft was too slow entering the turn. (Much like the other 2). All 3 had similar results. A non survivable crash.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Even when considering the cost of their training, pay, and benefits, a fighter pilot is lot cheaper than the plane these days.
In World War Two, the pilot was much more expensive.
However, even though the economics have changed, the training has become much more lengthy and involved. It takes three years to get a fighter pilot to the point that they can safely fly and employ the airplane.
Over a decade to get to the point of being truly skilled with it.
That is part of why the USAF and USN are so short of pilots right now - they're leaving faster than they can be replaced.
Planes seem to be quicker to build than to get and train the best of the best.
Even when considering the cost of their training, pay, and benefits, a fighter pilot is lot cheaper than the plane these days.
In World War Two, the pilot was much more expensive.
However, even though the economics have changed, the training has become much more lengthy and involved. It takes three years to get a fighter pilot to the point that they can safely fly and employ the airplane.
Over a decade to get to the point of being truly skilled with it.
That is part of why the USAF and USN are so short of pilots right now - they're leaving faster than they can be replaced.
Planes seem to be quicker to build than to get and train the best of the best.
Here is a King Air that didn't quite make it.
Lord have mercy, some of these videos are tough to watch.
And yet another one bites the dust. Unbelievable. What do these "pilots" have against airspeed and shallow climb angles?
Originally Posted By: TheLawnRanger
What's wrong with you guys? Nothing lighthearted about a plane crash.
That is true, however, as a pilot, I do want to know what causes the crash. I don't find the jokes offensive in any way, I find them a natural way to deal with a bad situation.
What's wrong with you guys? Nothing lighthearted about a plane crash.
That is true, however, as a pilot, I do want to know what causes the crash. I don't find the jokes offensive in any way, I find them a natural way to deal with a bad situation.
Report on the Scottsdale crash showed cocaine in the student pilot's system...don't know how much, don't know if that had any effect.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/28/studen-pilot-in-crash-that-killed-six-had-cocaine-in-his-system/
https://nypost.com/2018/06/28/studen-pilot-in-crash-that-killed-six-had-cocaine-in-his-system/
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I remember a horrific video of a B-52 pilot doing low level demo flying. Got too slow with too much bank angle and what for a BUFF would practically be Nape of the Earth altitude. Disasterous.
And the guy who spent a fortune building a scale model, and repeated the incident near perfectly.
Did he ever...
Forget what the airplane itself cost. 8 micro turbines is a king's ransom.
Originally Posted By: LoneRanger
I remember a horrific video of a B-52 pilot doing low level demo flying. Got too slow with too much bank angle and what for a BUFF would practically be Nape of the Earth altitude. Disasterous.
And the guy who spent a fortune building a scale model, and repeated the incident near perfectly.
Did he ever...
Forget what the airplane itself cost. 8 micro turbines is a king's ransom.
Approx how much was that RC B-52 ?
Google says $60K.
I imagine that's for parts, so with labor, it's quite a crash...
I imagine that's for parts, so with labor, it's quite a crash...
- Status
Similar threads
