SpazSinbad
Active Member
What is this mythical 'under warranty' idea come from? Please explain.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Vonnoobie mentioned it as a possibility but likely there is no warranty even though the jet is likely less than a year old. Aviation News reported deliveries to Australia started in 2017.
If there was any heatI'm no repair expert however - to me - this looks like expensive repair especially for toasted need to be replace avionics. Good airframe back home for learning how to repair damaged airframes I guess: https://i.imgur.com/lhKnsdN.png We'll find out in due course with some detail I hope about what went wrong etc.
It will be the structure that is the big problem as anything that has been that has been heated much above 250 C will have started to anneal (soften ) and lose strength, so that anything that shows signs of heat or smoke will need to be replaced which would appear to be most of the right hand side of the fuselage and wing. the heat may have gone under the fuselage and affected the left side as well. The big problem will be figuring out what has suffered heat damage as there may not necessarily be any physical signs. Heat damage could easily mean that the structure of this aircraft is a right off. I would suggest that there will need to be a huge amount of testing and investigation of the structure just to figure out if it is indeed reparable or not. I would stress that it does not require much heat to stuff an aluminium aircraft structure.I'm no repair expert however - to me - this looks like expensive repair especially for toasted need to be replace avionics. Good airframe back home for learning how to repair damaged airframes I guess: https://i.imgur.com/lhKnsdN.png We'll find out in due course with some detail I hope about what went wrong etc.
Last edited:
They airforce has had a pretty good run with its fast jets. The last accident of any real note that I can remember was a wheels up landing by an F-111 back in 2006.
That aircraft was effectively written off ... but it was an old aircraft by then. Another F-111 was lost in 1999 ... unfortunately resulting in the loss of the crew.
The last Hornet lost in an accident was back in 1994. Actually that was a bad year ... we lost two of them with the pilots dying in those accidents.
That aircraft was effectively written off ... but it was an old aircraft by then. Another F-111 was lost in 1999 ... unfortunately resulting in the loss of the crew.
The last Hornet lost in an accident was back in 1994. Actually that was a bad year ... we lost two of them with the pilots dying in those accidents.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Yes the RAAF Hornets have a had an excellent record after the four early losses - one apparently caused by the pilot removing his oxygen mask whilst climbing to high altitude - then he succumbed to lack of oxygen & crashed in parts unknown - not found for some time. I mention this due to the ongoing oxygen/OBOGS issues with all US aircraft (mostly). Anyhow one would expect USNInews to be better informed - they prolly are but only from the USN perspective ('pilot did not eject' for example). This 'accident investigation monitoring' is like a no-brainer for all Growler operators - OK there are only two then. 
Navy Monitoring Results of Australian EA-18G Growler Fire Investigation - USNI News 29 Jan 2017
Navy Monitoring Results of Australian EA-18G Growler Fire Investigation - USNI News 29 Jan 2017
From my NavAv perspective 'trailing the hook through the dirt' is a big nono. However I acknowledge the pilot had a lot of gas and plenty of time for others to simulate an arrest whilst he practiced one or twice (without hook down) I believe. Think about it. Dragging hook point on ground with the possibility also of catching the concrete lip of the runway beginning - for hook/hook point to fail - is not so good. However he did what he was told and it was a great success. BZ to the young bloke.
Last edited:
Haven't the SHs already been merged into one enlarged squadron (1 Squadron) with the Growlers assigned to 6 Squadron?
Tas
In the strict sense of the word, then perhaps the term warranty may not be correct. However, if the investigation identifies that a fault was caused in the manufacturing process or by 3rd sub-contractor parts supplier then I believe there would be at least the possibility of some redress either directly from Boeing or via the courts.
The example I have in mind is the QF 32 incident of 4 November 2010. If you recall and according to ATSB Report AO 2010-089 the No.2 Rolls Royce Trent 900 engine on that flight suffered an uncontained engine rotor failure. Sorry can’t yet post links.
The report goes on to say that the cause of the failure was determined to be a fatigue crack in an oil feed line that resulted in an internal oil fire.
Even though A380’s powered by Rolls Royce engines were a mature operating platform Qantas commenced legal action in the Federal Court for damages under the Trade Practices Act. Initially Rolls Royce were going to contest the case but as events transpired, according to the Qantas Media Release of 22 June 2011, an out of court settlement between the parties was reached whereby Rolls Royce had agreed to compensate Qantas GBP 56 million or AUD 96 million.
I have not been able to find a split up of that amount into the engine replacement and the income lost by Qantas when it grounded their A380 fleet pending identification of the fault.
I don’t know if this precedent from commercial aviation is directly relatable to the military field but (subject to my caveats regarding the origins of the fault in the first paragraph) I would find it strange that any military supplier could be excused from liability arising from a product fault.
SpazSinbad
Active Member
For military aircraft AFAIK this is not the case. The miljet is tested by manufacturer then by air arm then accepted for service if no faults found. YES, before service acceptance if fault found then it is up to the various suppier entities to fix it before further testing and ultimate acceptance. After that the service wears cost of faults. IF anyone knows any difference to this broad view of military jet use then please explain. Thanks.
MARKMILES77
Active Member
The RAAF's fourth and fifth F 35s are now flying in the US.
Numbers are beginning to build quickly!
Numbers are beginning to build quickly!
Pictures show damage to crashed RAAF jet EA-18G Growler at Nellis Air Force Base Nevada
Never let the truth get in the way of a good headline. I love the ‘crash’ comment and the 300m price tag (they did clarify that later in the item by noting that was whole of life cost ..... but it is sill aimed at a beat up).
The airframe looks to have suffered extensive damage so it at be a scrap for spares job as some have suggested..... but we will have to wait for the official advice.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes the RAAF Hornets have a had an excellent record after the four early losses - one apparently caused by the pilot removing his oxygen mask whilst climbing to high altitude - then he succumbed to lack of oxygen & crashed in parts unknown - not found for some time. I mention this due to the ongoing oxygen/OBOGS issues with all US aircraft (mostly). Anyhow one would expect USNInews to be better informed - they prolly are but only from the USN perspective ('pilot did not eject' for example). This 'accident investigation monitoring' is like a no-brainer for all Growler operators - OK there are only two then.
Navy Monitoring Results of Australian EA-18G Growler Fire Investigation - USNI News 29 Jan 2017
From my NavAv perspective 'trailing the hook through the dirt' is a big nono. However I acknowledge the pilot had a lot of gas and plenty of time for others to simulate an arrest whilst he practiced one or twice (without hook down) I believe. Think about it. Dragging hook point on ground with the possibility also of catching the concrete lip of the runway beginning - for hook/hook point to fail - is not so good. However he did what he was told and it was a great success. BZ to the young bloke.
Quick question, do non- USN users actually utilize the tail hook. The only reason I can imagine why the RAAF would is if they train to operate from USN CVNs when they are in the neighbourhood.
Yep the tailhook has been utilised on occasion, such as the RAAF F-111 belly in 2007 - see video posted by hauritz a couple of posts above. The RNZAF utilised the tailhooks on the old A-4Ks more than once.
There are a raft of emergencies where using the hook to take the cable is the preferred option. An example would be a nose wheel steering failure. It is used quite regularly.. most military bases around the world have cables for such emergencies as do many fighter types including Typhoon, F15, F16 and F22...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So, was there some kind of arrestor cable setup for the tailhook? I couldn't tell from the video. I have always thought the additional strength of naval airframes was an advantage for less than ideal landing strips in Canada's north but am not aware if the RCAF employs arrestor cables up north. In a fantasy scenario maybe the RCAF should get F-35Cs instead of F-35As.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
SpazSinbad
Active Member
Nellis AFB has two parallel runways with BAK-12 Arrestor Gear at each end. These are termed Short & Long Field depending on direction of use. Usually landing aircraft will aim to use the short field arrestor gear whilst aircraft taking off would use the long field gear. Also aircraft landing may have brake or other problems that might require a long field arrest.
A lot of modern fighter aircraft have a hook - not just Naval Aircraft. The CRAB aircraft usually have what is termed an 'Emergency Hook' and it is less robust than a carrier aircraft hook (designed for regular carrier use). The F-35A has such an 'emergency hook' which IIRC currently has a problem in that it has been found to less robust but still OK to use that one time. This hook is on a strap much like that found at the back end of an F-16 whilst these hooks are out of sight, housed in the under rear fuselage. Usually they are also used as a restraint during an aircraft engine run. IF used to catch a wire then they need to be thoroughly inspected and replaced if necessary. Therefore world wide one will see short/long field arrestor gear everywhere.
The first F-35A AA-1 was a one of heavyweight example not replicated due to 'weight control' but it was always slated to be destroyed in Live Fire Testing. One of the first tests it carried out was to go to the desert airfield to test the brakes and emergency arrestor hook. There are portable arrestor gear setups also for use on roads or small airfields.
Some old military aircraft / civilian aircraft have trouble taxiing OVER or landing on BAK-9/12 arrestor gear so a version that allows the wire (with the rubber grommets that support this wire above the runway) to be out of sight below the runway is the BAK-14. ATC can raise this wire on request. Advice in NATOPS for example is to lower the hook at least 1,000 yards before the wire so that there is ample time for the hook to lower fully (and not too much time dragging on the tarmac).
Last edited:
The F-35A also has an emergency tailhook too, as do the other aircraft mentioned, F-16 etc etc
The F-35A has started tailhook testing at Edwards AFB
Cheers
Takao
The Bunker Group
I know (having worked on both) of two airframes that had warranty periods. Depending on the part it was 3 / 6 / 12 months and a specific hour limit (think 3 yr / 10 000km warranty for cars). On a couple of occasions there was a very short period between expiry and U/S that meant late hours to pull the part off and package it up. I even know of at least one part that was replaced 'under warranty' despite being years out.