B-2 Crash!

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Micdrow

Great find there tiger, I dont know why but it looks like the one that crashed pulled up way to soon.

Thanks for the clip tiger, yes it looked like the B2 suddenly shot up. No-air-No-fly

Regards
Kruska

[evangilder]

Here is a similar clip on AVWeb. After seeing the clip, I see that the crew had no choice left but to bail out. The clip also explains why it pulled up fast like that.

Exclusive Video: B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber Crash Technical Report

[Matt308]

If that report is true, then that smacks of control laws that are more in line with EADS/AIRBUS than Boeing. Specifically, that pilots input is always overruled by software control law limits. [Reference A320 crash at Paris Airshow where AOA limits were not allowed to be exceeded] But then again, with 30+ hour missions the control laws likely are as much UAV oriented as manned oriented. Interesting.

YouTube - Airbus A320 Plane Crash

[comiso90]

Air Force: Moisture caused $1.4 billion bomber crash

Air Force: Moisture caused $1.4 billion bomber crash - CNN.com

.

[Kruska]

Once aircrafts, especially high Tec flyers such as a B-2 come to age (10-15 years+) this kind of maintenance or material-system tiring effects are unavoidable. I think it proves the outstanding quality of the B-2 and maintenance quality by the USAF that no other major accidents have occurred so far.

This was also one of the reasons for Germany to abstain from further developing this kind of aircrafts, since the expected or needed in service life of 40-50 years on such sensitive a/c might not be viable and will exceed any reasonable (more or less uncalculated) budget.

Regards
Kruska

[Wayne Little]

Only just saw this crash tonight on the news...

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Kruska

This was also one of the reasons for Germany to abstain from further developing this kind of aircrafts, since the expected or needed in service life of 40-50 years on such sensitive a/c might not be viable and will exceed any reasonable (more or less uncalculated) budget.

Regards
Kruska

Kruska, what kind of aircraft? A strategic bomber?? Exceeding a German (more or less uncalculated) budget? And for 40-50 years of continued airworthiness?

Please explain further. I'm not sure I understand your point as it relates to Germany's procurement and operational needs.

[Kruska]

Hello Matt308,

Project “Leiseflieger” = Silent Flyer was started in 1970 and resulted in the maybe the first stealthy aircraft in 1975 regarding RAM. Project MRMF " Firefly” from MBB was started in 1981 (a stealth fighter - 2 prototypes build)-The RCS was tested on a full-scale - and a windtunnel modell- and stopped in 1988 due to the above mentioned concerns regarding “impossible to be calculated” risks for financing maintenance costs - surface skin controlls -and life service upgrade costs, and future radar developments Low-frequency radars-2GHz-UHF and L-band frequency, and in the IRST technology.

MBB also developed a software package for RCS calculation, similar to Lockheed's 'Echo' RCS-calculation program. The RaSigma4 is the continuation in practical verification of RCS. It’s RCS was supposedly lower than that of the F-117 in 1991. The obtained know How went into the Tornado upgrade and the development of the Eurofighter and Barrakuda

The TDEFS project is a followup on the "Firefly". FireflyII

Some rumors indicate a certain US influence to stop the project after it was unveiled to the US in 1987 - rumors -

Lamp2.jpg

Lamp3.jpg

lamp4.jpg

Regards
Kruska

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello Matt308,

Project “Leiseflieger” = Silent Flyer was started in 1970 and resulted in the maybe the first stealthy aircraft in 1975 regarding RAM.
Regards
Kruska

Kruska, enough of your revisionist history already. While I won't disclaim your RaSigma historical claims... much... I will contest that you seem to be highly biased with your stealth technology origins and your posts appear to be more than a bit obfuscatory.

The US in the mid 50s applied RAM technology to airframes THAT WERE ACTUALLY FIELDED [reference SR-71]. While your Leiseflieger looks impressive, it was 30s years too late and reminds me of nothing more than a modification of the US X-3. Somehow I feel that your background is steeped more in your professional experiences and you are unwilling to admit historical precedences have been set which are contrary to your reality.

Sad actually.

[Kruska]

Hello Matt308,

The only person that is reacting totally biased against others (German) developments or technical knowhow is you.
You have demonstrated this in every post were I have brought news to the forum about Germany’s technical abilities or projects.
First you dispute it, you just wipe it off the table, then you provoke and want to know more at the same time, and after you receive additional info you will accuse me of taking bull, tell me I am biased and a revisionist.

What modifications make a “Leiseflieger” become an X-3? Absolutely NONE – because you do not even know about this project and nobody seems to have forwarded any data’s or pictures to you. So what would you term a person who doesn’t know about something but straight away gives a negative and totally wrong statement?

Even the pictured “Firefly” has nothing to do with a modified X-3. Unless you would consider that an Alpha Jet mock up is a modification of an F-104, or a Leopard I is a modification of a Sherman. RAM technology was already applied by Germany during the 2nd WW for its submarines. Now if someone will tell and “proof” to me that RAM was already applied in the 1930th, I would be glad to hear about it since it would enhance my knowledge extreemly in regards to Radar history. Ever heard about the BAe Stealth project? But who am I writing to anyway.

You have provided absolutely nothing substantial on any of my forwarding’s but you resort to personal attacks and insinuations.
You don’t even take the time to read a post properly, so next time please refrain from comments regarding any of my posts as long as your narrow mindedness simply can’t take it, that not only the US is knowledgeable.

Regards
Kruska

[Glider]

Back to the subject, I understand that the B2 crashed due to condensation on some of the sensors. This led to the computer giving instructions based on false readings resulting in the accident.

This risk had been identified but the information had not been passed to all the support crews as a formal notification or even informal warning.

Result, the loss of an almost priceless asset at heaven only knows what cost because a paper wasn't processed correctly.

The Crew and Support team of the aircraft have been exonerated of any blame.

[davparlr]

This gives an answer to my first question of why the Pitot/static sensors heat did not boil off any water (they are very hot). It seems this is an example of nobody sitting down as doing a step-by-step hazard analysis possibilities of aircraft operation, particularly ground operations.

Not many fly-by-wire aircraft today allow pilots to override the computers. Many military aircraft today are basically unstable, including fighters and B-2, and require computers to fly the aircraft.


B-2 accident report released

6/6/2008 - LANGLEY AIR FORCE BASE, Va. (AFPN) -- Distorted data introduced by a B-2 Spirit's air data system skewed information entering the bomber's flight control computers ultimately causing the crash of the aircraft on takeoff at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, Feb. 23, according to an Air Combat Command accident investigation report released June 5.

Moisture in the aircraft's Port Transducer Units during air data calibration distorted the information in the bomber's air data system, causing the flight control computers to calculate an inaccurate airspeed and a negative angle of attack upon takeoff. According to the report, this caused an, "uncommanded 30 degree nose-high pitch-up on takeoff, causing the aircraft to stall and its subsequent crash."

Moisture in the PTUs, inaccurate airspeed, a negative AOA calculation and low altitude/low airspeed are substantially contributing factors in this mishap. Another substantially contributing factor was the ineffective communication of critical information regarding a suggested technique of turning on pitot heat in order to remove moisture from the PTUs prior to performing an air data calibration.

The pilot received minor injuries, and the co-pilot received a spinal compression fracture during ejection. He was treated at Tripler Army Medical Center, Hawaii, and released. The aircraft was assigned to the 509th Bomb Wing at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.

The cost of the lost aircraft is about $1.4 billion.