skyrider 0 #1 July 8, 2010 Pop and hop? http://www.vidiload.com/index.php?page=videos§ion=view&vid_id=102082 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnMitchell 16 #2 July 8, 2010 I've seen that clip before. Not sure what happened but I think they call that "Giving the plane back to the taxpayers." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #3 July 8, 2010 Quote I've seen that clip before. Not sure what happened but I think they call that "Giving the plane back to the taxpayers." Had to be a tough call, it looked landable/survivable, and those ejections hurt like helll! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LongWayToFall 0 #4 July 8, 2010 It looks like he lands right back in the cockpit! hahaha. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #5 July 8, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/suffolk/3330045.stm Sounds like the pilot accidentally reduced power when trying to transition to forward flight. I love this line: Quote Flight Lieutenant Cann, who is now flying again and based at RAF Cottismore, is said to have received advice following the loss of the plane in August 2002. What was the advice? "Next time DON'T TOUCH THAT!"---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyrider 0 #6 July 8, 2010 Y a think?? QuoteChanges in pilot training have been recommended after it was discovered that a cockpit mistake by the flier was responsible for the crash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #7 July 8, 2010 I remember hearing somewhere that harriers are prone to a situation where when they are low and not moving horizontally for a period of time hot exhaust is somehow drawn back into the intakes and reduces power severely, and is what caused it, but I did hear it on the internet, and you know how that goes. What concerns me most in all the slow, no airspeed ejections is that the pilot ejects, and is usually sent away from the aircraft, but swings back onto it under canopy like there is a magnet there. There was one floating around where they ejected in a stall and landed back into the flaming wreckage. Guess that's still better than being in the flaming wreckage the whole time. Kinda just a kick in the nuts....ooh shit eject.....ok good canopy, glad i got outta that...... aww god damn your murphys law not twice in one day....plf onto the flaming plane lol Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pchapman 280 #8 July 8, 2010 Quote Sounds like the pilot accidentally reduced power when trying to transition to forward flight. That reminds me of a similar throttle / stick / nozzle mixup on the aircraft that led to the Harrier. As the story goes: Quote In 1964 the Tripartite Kestrel Evaluation Squadron, or TES, was formed in the UK by the governments of the United States, West Germany, and Britain. The purpose of the TES was to perform operational trials with the Hawker P.1127 Kestrel. Each nation provided personnel and pilots for the TES and West Germany was represented by Colonel Gerhard Barkhorn, who was the second-highest scoring ace in the Luftwaffe during World War 2 with 301 victories. The Germans participated in the TES to forward their own knowledge base with their own V/STOL project, the VAK.191. On one test flight, Barkhorn cut the throttle too early while in vertical landing mode and the Kestrel dropped quickly and destroyed the undercarriage. As Col. Barkhorn walked away from the crash-landing, he kicked the aircraft out of frustration and declared that the wrecked Kestrel was the "302nd Allied aircraft" he had destroyed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
captain1976 0 #9 July 9, 2010 QuoteI remember hearing somewhere that harriers are prone to a situation where when they are low and not moving horizontally for a period of time hot exhaust is somehow drawn back into the intakes and reduces power severely, and is what caused it, but I did hear it on the internet, and you know how that goes. Quote The Harrier is actually listed as an engineering disaster. It has a tremendous amount of flaws and was designed poorly according to the US Marines. Its not only dangerous to operate but very time consuming to maintain. That's why Davis Mothan AFB is full of them rotting away (see pix), some since the early 90's. The US Military is sorry they ever purchased them and its one of the few aircraft ever manufactured that was label by the Marine Pilots as "widow makers".You live more in the few minutes of skydiving than many people live in their lifetime Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Beerlight 0 #10 July 9, 2010 And yet, we are purchasing the V/STOL F-35? Makes no sense whatsoever to allocate monies for a plane where there is no requirement for V/STOL.... ah, that's right......the Navy and Marines Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Beerlight 0 #10 July 9, 2010 And yet, we are purchasing the V/STOL F-35? Makes no sense whatsoever to allocate monies for a plane where there is no requirement for V/STOL.... ah, that's right......the Navy and Marines Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites