 |
| MOSCOW, June 10. One of the T-50's engines failed during landing near Moscow on Tuesday, and there was a minor fire on aircraft’s hull. No casualties were reported and the fire was quickly extinguished. “The jet will be restored. No one was injured. Sukhoi company has set up a commission to investigate the reasons of the accident. But the accident will not change the schedule of test runs slated for the T-50 program,” the company said in a statement. |
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
PAK-FA prototype caught fire via War Machine...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
Basicly what happend
ReplyDeletehttp://dementievskiy.livejournal.com/344405.html
~In fact, it went down slightly different. Today T-50 initially rose to demonstrate the possibilities for our Indian guests. Around 12 pm on board lost contact. Was only partial remaining. On the 3rd turn there was an alarm, shavings in the right engines, the pilot was forced to shut down the right engine. Since there was no communication, he passed over the runway waving wings, letting understand the RP (EDIT: ATC) problems on board. Successfully able to land the plane on one engine. Turned to the nearest taxiway, the pilot immediately turned off the left engine. Then all the fun started! RP gave the command to leave the plane immediately. Pilot turned around and saw that intense belching black smoke poured out of the right engine. Without waiting for any ladders pilot jumped out of the cockpit. Seeing a burning puddle of fuel underneath the plane he ran a good 100 meters.~
"Then all the fun started!"
DeleteWhat typical Russian Humor. Vladimir Putin has that effect on people. And now the internet will again be full of......In Soviet Russia something kills you memes.
This doesn't surprise me. I know Russia is trying to develop some really new and highly advanced engines for the PAK-FA. Their new engines are supposedly some of the most advanced and complex in the world, but they've been having problems with it.
ReplyDeleteYes, better this kind of incident happens in a controlled and monitered environment where a full scientific post-mortem of this can take place.
DeleteInteresting take-away, "Successfully able to land the plane on one engine."
ReplyDeleteWhy is that "interesting"?
Deletethe implication is clear. a single engine airplane would not have been able to land safely....or would have had alot more difficulty.
DeleteChances are the T-50 prototype would be a goner if not for it's second engine... Canada is gonna have trouble.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThat's only more fuel for the debate here in Canada, yesterday there was a report saying why the F-35 is dangerous for Canada.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buying-single-engine-f-35s-for-canada-a-serious-mistake-report-1.2669476
http://theaviationist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/img_2917.jpg
Why... I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't be willing to spend $160+ Million on an airplane that could be lost to a simple engine failure...
DeleteThat report mentions the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, of which 200 were built. 110 of which crashed, of which a quarter were attributed to engine failures from bird strikes.
DeleteAssuming similar purchase numbers... That means that Canada could expect to lose $4.1B of their F-35 investment to around 28 birds being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Instead of reaching all the way back to the CF-104, try more recent records like the F-16. Not only does the F-16 have a better safety record than the F-18, but The F-35/F135 combo has demonstrated a better safety record than either the F-16 or F-18.
DeleteTHAT IS A HUGE PILE OF STEAMING CRAP DUDE! how are you going to compare the safety record of naval aircraft against that of land based counterparts? its disingenuous at best! i won't even touch the thought that the F-35 is a safety dream. it hasn't done jack yet!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA lot of those early F-18 incidents were land based Navy, Marine and Canadian F-18s
Deletehttp://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=F18
Btw, the F-16 had several crashes with a few years of First Flight
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/aircraft_by_type/f-16/usaf/f_16_USAF_80s.htm
Here is a better list of F-16 accidents with details:
Deletehttp://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=F16
This is what happens woth a small bird. Here in Canada the birds are huge. In Spring and fall they fly in formation like a B-52
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1ReT4_cF2U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
At this time, there is no $160M F-35. That requires proof.
ReplyDeleteHey Drive-By, if you crash an F-35, you don't have to pay for all the non-recurring costs to buy a new one.. So yes, it's less than $160 to replace an F-35.
DeleteYeah... If you don't crash them, you'll end up paying just over $600M for lifetime costs.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
Even an $85M plane (optimistic DoD estimate) is too expensive to risk on a single engine. The F-16 is only $18M a copy, after all.
With Plane costs skyrocketing faster than a hypersonic engine, you'd think atleast some nation out there will have a project to produce the Ford Model-T of Modern Aircraft ?
DeleteAnd I dont mean the Grippen.
Something on the lines of the JF-17, but with a more powerfull radar. An old airframe given a new lease of life. Yes, It stings me to admit it that the chinese have pulled off a decent job on the old Mig-21.
No, an F-16C Block 30/32 was $18 million in 1998...
DeleteToday, a new Block 50/52 F-16 costs $45 million
---"Not only does the F-16 have a better safety record than the F-18, but The F-35/F135 combo has demonstrated a better safety record than either the F-16 or F-18."--- LOL. You have to gauge total fleet against total fleet. In this case a bad idea because the F-18 is carrier qualified with a different range of risks. The F-16 was never carrier qualified. As for the F-35, there is no operational, fully-go-to war example, so what you are stating is wishful thinking.
ReplyDeleteum, the examples of crashed F-18s are GROUND BASED..
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt7P-gbNsgs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDeleteAs for ops attrition. It depends on service and number. Canada bought more CF-18s (138) and lost more airframes (6-7?). RAAF 75 for 4 lost. Then you have to look at what is pilot error, poor training, poor maintenance or design defect. Early F-16 fielding was hard work. It was fast, powerful and could kill you in a number of more ways (more G-lock etc). It was also delivered with incomplete training manuals making the first "operational" (not ops test) pilots ....test pilots...by any other name. Kill a non-test pilot via poor training. There isn't much you can do with the current F-35 "prototypes"/"mistake-jets" at the moment for training because not much works and it is a benign flight envelop. Marketing over substance.
ReplyDeleteI bet that version of the PAK-FA was demonstrating the new AL-41 varient. Oh well, back to the drawing board, will have to read more on how the fire started. Was the fire origin the engine or some other alien filings that went in the intake and caused the flameout.
ReplyDeleteI can see the Russian Public Relations Officer and Mikhael Pogosyan going up the the Indian "Guests" and saying......."Da, Combat Simulator".
ReplyDeleteFot this pilot 4 engines replaced by 2 is the same logic as 2 engines replacwd bu 1.
ReplyDeleteFunny new argument
http://video.intelligencer.ca/search/all/source/kenora-daily-miner-and-news/f-35-jet-decision/3616567586001