Re: Osprey vs. Harrier

[Stephen D. Poe]

Brian Allardice wrote:
> These damned things [Osprey} have been fluttering around for better than 30 years. How
> long do you have to flog a dying concept for it to loose the "revolutionary"
> label. Is that simply another way of saying "It doesn't bloody work yet"?
> When was the last time someone called the Harrier 'revolutionary'? Of course,
> the Harrier does work.....
>
> Cheers,
> dba

Very poor choice of plane to compare it to.

To quote a recent article:
"They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major
accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service.
Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps
bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a
third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.

The toll has been little noted by the public and the media because the
Harrier tends to kill pilots one at a time. In contrast, the V-22
Osprey, a problem-plagued troop transport plane, has killed as many as
19 Marines in a single crash.

The Harrier and the Osprey are the first two planes the Marine Corps has
acquired in pursuing its long-range vertical vision. A third plane is
under active development and several others are being conceived."
- http://www.latimes.com/news/specials/harrier/la-harrier-day1.story

Please note I'm not knocking the Harrier.

Anytime you develop a totally new type of aircraft and have to also
develop new operational concepts you get fatal accidents. Go back and
review the early days of everything from the Harrier to the early jets
and helicopters.

Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous
than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several
thousand feet.

It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more
fatalities than many of the older planes, it that we've become less
tolerant of failures during R&D T&E.

[Tony Williams]

"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote in message >...
>
> To quote a recent article:
> "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
> dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.
>
> Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major
> accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service.
> Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps
> bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a
> third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.

As a matter of interest, how does that compare with the accident rate
experienced with conventional naval/marine planes flying from
carriers?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Moggycat]

"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote

> "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
> dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.

Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:

"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today."

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Stephen D. Poe >
writes
>Anytime you develop a totally new type of aircraft and have to also
>develop new operational concepts you get fatal accidents. Go back and
>review the early days of everything from the Harrier to the early jets
>and helicopters.

The Harrier didn't do too badly in US service at the start, they had a
period of nearly two years accident free.

>Also note the operational requirements are inherently more dangerous
>than, say, circumstances where you rarely, if ever, fly below several
>thousand feet.

The Harrier regularly operates in an environment unique to itself,
basically zero air speed very close to the ground. If anything happens
it's game over, all the pilot can do is pull the handle. No other
aircraft is intentionally put in the same situation (choppers can auto-
rotate if needed). STOVL JSF has a more complicated system with more
failure points.

>It's not that the Osprey is more dangerous or has resulted in more
>fatalities than many of the older planes, it that we've become less
>tolerant of failures during R&D T&E.

The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
problems.

--
John

[benjym]

(Tony Williams) wrote in message

> As a matter of interest, how does that compare with the accident rate
> experienced with conventional naval/marine planes flying from
> carriers?

And how do USMC accident rates compare to UK accident rates in their
respective harrier fleets? I don't think the RAF or Royal Navy Fleet
Air Arm lose that many aircraft.

What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will incorporate
innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under
development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted with
fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of
practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous
regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle,
thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the
aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the
pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22?

Benjym

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
John Halliwell > wrote:
>
>The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
>have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
>determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
>rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
>problems.

I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Peter Skelton]

On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:

>"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote
>
>> "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
>> dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.
>
>Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
>
>"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
>military today."

It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.
____

Peter Skelton

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter Skelton > wrote:

:On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
:>
:>Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:>
:>"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:>military today."
:
:It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.

Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Peter Skelton > wrote:
>
> :On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
> :>
> :>Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
> :>
> :>"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
> :>military today."
> :
> :It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.
>
> Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
> failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.
>
well, there's no need to limit the blame to pilots, from the article in
question:

"The accident inquiry concluded that a circlip, a semicircular fastener,
was incorrectly installed by mechanics on the gas turbine starter,
setting off a chain reaction that led to the engine failure."

[Tony Williams]

(ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> John Halliwell > wrote:
> >
> >The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the problems
> >have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
> >determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
> >rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
> >problems.
>
> I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
> way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..

Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article
in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way
back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a
low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing
fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of
their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules!

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[Felger Carbon]

"benjym" > wrote:
>
> What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will
incorporate
> innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under
> development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted
with
> fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of
> practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous
> regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle,
> thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the
> aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the
> pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22?

When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you
really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If
not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those
circumstances?

[John Keeney]

Tony Williams > wrote in message
m...
> (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN) wrote in message
>...
> > In article >,
> > John Halliwell > wrote:
> > >
> > >The problem with the Osprey is the inability to demonstrate the
problems
> > >have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
> > >determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
> > >rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
> > >problems.
> >
> > I'm aware I've said this before, but it seems an awful complicated
> > way of avoiding building a Rotodyne..
>
> Ah, the Rotodyne. I don't know if you saw it but there was an article
> in June 'Air International' saying that the gyrodyne may be on the way
> back. A company called Groen Brothers Aviation are proposing this as a
> low-cost, low risk approach,initially by converting existing
> fixed-wing aircraft to have a rotor on top. Believe it or not, one of
> their key targets for such a conversion is the C-130 Hercules!

Saw some film a few nights back on the TV of a WWII era jeep
with boat tail and rotor a few feet off the ground. Looks like the
idea was to tow them in separate during air assaults.

[Fred J. McCall]

"Felger Carbon" > wrote:

:When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you
:really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If
:not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those
:circumstances?

Well, there is actually some question whether it CAN be landed quickly
under ANY circumstances that aren't called a crash.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Fred J. McCall]

(Tony Williams) wrote:

:"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote in message >...
:>
:> To quote a recent article:
:> "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
:> dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.
:>
:> Over the last three decades, it has amassed the highest rate of major
:> accidents of any Air Force, Navy, Army or Marine plane now in service.
:> Forty-five Marines have died in 143 noncombat accidents since the corps
:> bought the so-called jump jet from the British in 1971. More than a
:> third of the fleet has been lost to accidents.
:
:As a matter of interest, how does that compare with the accident rate
:experienced with conventional naval/marine planes flying from
:carriers?

AV-8 12/100,000 flight hours
F/A-18 3/100,000 flight hours

So the AV-8 accident rate is about 4 times higher than conventional
carrier air. To put things further in perspective, over 2/3 of the
AV-8 accidents are mechanicals and less than 1/3 are pilot error.
Reverse that for most other carrier aircraft (around 2/3 of the
accidents are pilot error).

Looking at those numbers, what you see is that the pilot error rate
for the AV-8 is around twice what it is in the F/A-18 (an aircraft
noted for the heavy workload it imposes on the pilot - a significant
number (in fact it's the highest single cause) of F/A-18 Class A
accidents are CFIT). So the AV-8 is significantly harder to fly. You
also see a mechanical accident rate of something like eight times that
of the F/A-18, so the AV-8 is *hugely* less reliable. This is
probably only to be expected from the significantly more mechanically
complex AV-8 (hover is hard), particularly given the much older engine
technology and the fact that there is only one engine.

As a benchmark, the old F-8 Crusader used to run an accident rate of
around 14/100,000 flight hours.

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Fred J. McCall]

(Moggycat) wrote:

:"Stephen D. Poe" > wrote
:
:> "They know this drill all too well because the Harrier is the most
:> dangerous airplane flying in the U.S. military today.
:
:Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
:
:"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
:military today."

Except it's not true, since over 2/3 of all Harrier Class A accidents
involve mechanical faults in flight rather than pilot error.

(That's over 8/100,000 flight hours, so even if you eliminate ALL
human error from the Harrier numbers, the accident rate is still
almost 3x the *total* accident rate for the F/A-18.)

--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Peter Skelton > wrote:
> :>
> :> :On 8 Aug 2003 04:42:50 -0700, (Moggycat) wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :>Correction on behalf of Peter Rieden and co:
> :> :>
> :> :>"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
> :> :>military today."
> :> :
> :> :It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher.
> :>
> :> Then explain how over 2/3 of the major accidents are mechanical
> :> failures and not human failures, if it's a pilot training problem.
> :>
> :well, there's no need to limit the blame to pilots, from the article in
> :question:
> :
> :"The accident inquiry concluded that a circlip, a semicircular fastener,
> :was incorrectly installed by mechanics on the gas turbine starter,
> :setting off a chain reaction that led to the engine failure."
>
> So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
> one proves up wrong?
well, the statement was
"It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher."

you're the one who limited it to pilots.

>
> Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....

Well, if that's how you want to tar yourself go ahead.

>

[NoHoverStop]

Felger Carbon wrote:

> "benjym" > wrote:
>
>>What we do know is that the harrier replacement (JSF) will
>
> incorporate
>
>>innovations to reduce v-stol pilot workload currently under
>>development here in the UK. A Harrier prototype has been fitted
>
> with
>
>>fly-by-wire controls and a flight management computor capable of
>>practically landing the plane automatically - the most dangerous
>>regime of v-stol flight. Controlling parameters like nozzle angle,
>>thrust, pitch, speed, landing gear etc the computor can land the
>>aircraft from approach configuration with one button push from the
>>pilot. Maybe this kind of thinking could be applied to the V-22?
>
>
> When the V-22 Osprey is landing combat grunts on a hot LZ, do you
> really want a computer landing the aircraft slowly and safely? If
> not, how and when do you train the pilot to land quickly under those
> circumstances?
>
Why not let the computer(s) land it quickly and safely? A trite comment
admittedly but if you have a philosophical problem with automation
rather than knowledge of the actual technical difficulties then consider
that "driver aids" in racing cars allow the drivers to extract
considerably more performance from their vehicles and be far more
aggressive with them than if they had no help. You are right to allude
to training needs. If you're going to automate something then it had
better work under all likely circumstances, because otherwise its
dominant effect is to adversely impact operator currency for occasions
when it really matters. I suspect that in the "hot LZ" situation you
describe that you'd want a pilot controlling things, with automation to
keep everything within controllable limits. The pilot can then do what
humans do well, assess the situation, make decisions and innovate,
whilst being spared the jobs we're not so good at, like keeping a
variety of little instrument needles out of a variety of red-zones
whilst being shot at.

[Tom Cervo]

>"The Harrier is flown by some of the most dangerous pilots in the U.S.
military today."

That's what they'd say, too.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
> Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
>as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
>the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
>and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
>you.

VSTOL JSF has only one engine and is even more mechanically complex.

--
John

[Peter H. Granzeau]

On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 08:11:18 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

>So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
>one proves up wrong?
>
>Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....

Why was it necessary to take a discussion of facts and turn it into a
discussion of rhetoric?

[Fred J. McCall]

John Halliwell > wrote:

:In article >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
:> Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
:>as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
:>the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
:>and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
:>you.
:
:VSTOL JSF has only one engine and is even more mechanically complex.

Yeah. I know. The claim is that reliability has improved so much
over the past decades that it is now perfectly reasonable to adopt
Naval aircraft with single engines.

Needless to say, I'm not convinced. I'm even less convinced about
that whole lift-fan drive train for the -C version. It may make
transitions and hover easier - but only up until the first non-perfect
moment of the hardware has. It strikes me as a smoking hole waiting
to happen.

But then, I don't design airplanes and I'll never have to fly in the
thing....

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Fred J. McCall]

Peter H. Granzeau > wrote:

:On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 08:11:18 GMT, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:>So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
:>one proves up wrong?
:>
:>Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....
:
:Why was it necessary to take a discussion of facts and turn it into a
:discussion of rhetoric?

Because the other side was being fact free....

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>Yeah. I know. The claim is that reliability has improved so much
>over the past decades that it is now perfectly reasonable to adopt
>Naval aircraft with single engines.

The single engine obviously makes the loss of the aircraft more likely,
especially in naval ops where you're basically limited to vertical
landing. The real problem is engine failure in the hover, where the
pilot has very little time to react and has no option to save the
aircraft (makes his decision a bit easier, his only option is to pull
the handle).

The attitude with the Harrier seems to be, if the engine stops, your
trained military pilot pulls the handle and wins a Martin Baker tie.

With multi-engined VSTOL, losing an engine in the hover usually has the
same result, except the aircraft may not fall in a stable fashion,
making escape harder. If you cross-connect two engines like the V-22,
you always need twice the power you actually need. With a tilt-rotor,
the last place you want big engines is on the end of the wings,
especially if you're trying to tilt the whole mass of the engine. Better
to put the engines in the middle and take the drive to the props.

VSTOL JSF has the worst of both worlds, a single engine and two lift
mechanisms.

--
John

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
<snip>

> :> So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
> :> one proves up wrong?
> :well, the statement was
> :"It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher."
> :
> :you're the one who limited it to pilots.
>
> Your maintenance grunts go through that?

No, neither do our pilots, it's a submarine commanders course. FFS go
out and try to buy yourself a sense of humour and then read the
submersible harrier threads.


>
> :> Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....
> :
> :Well, if that's how you want to tar yourself go ahead.
>
> Somehow, I knew you'd try this sort of trolling misdirection from your
> own behaviour. Either address the real issue or shut up.
>
> AV-8 has 4 times the major accident rate of the other fixed wing
> aircraft the Marines fly (the F/A-18) in US service. The human error
> rate is over twice as large, and the catastrophic mechanical failure
> rate is EIGHT times as large. Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
> as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
> the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
> and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
> you. The human error rate also shouldn't come as a huge surprise to
> anyone with two neurons to slap wetly together, since vertical landing
> is obviously difficult.
>
> Then comes you. So, tell me - just how is the statement that the AV-8
> is the most dangerous aircraft currently in US service incorrect (or
> even surprising) given the preceding?

It's not. I never claimed otherwise, clearly though from the article
human error also applies to the ground crew, not just the pilots. And
the article seems to imply that this is above the norm. To add to your
list of reasons above I'd imagine that an aircraft which is being
maintained out of rough forward bases is going to have a higher level of
ground crew ****ups than one which is based on a carrier or at a base.



>
> So, what's the accident rate (under the same criteria used in the US)
> for the Harrier in British service? No fair comparing apples and
> aardvarks; you have to use the same criteria.
>


The only info I have is for all RAF harrier types (GR7 and T10) from
1988 to 2001 which lists the damage rate per 10,000 hours at 1.17.

The figures are for "damaged beyond local repair" or "loss of aircraft",
there's no monetary value attached .

For comparison the Jaguar is listed at 1.13 and the GR1/GR4 is listed
at 0.65.

Strangely there's an entry of 0.31 from 1989 for Lysander (I have to
assume this is a typo for something else).

[John Halliwell]

In article >, vince
> writes
>The truth, for both aircraft and the V 22 is somewher between these
>extremes.
>The Boeing 777 for example is rated to fly for three hours and about
>1300 miles on one engine.

That's more to do with the reliability of the chosen engine, after one
fails the chances of the other failing is statistically small to make it
improbable (as far as the regulations are concerned). The reliability
required when ERTOPS started (Extended Range Twin Engined Operations)
was something like less than one engine shutdown (on the engine type)
per 100,000 flight hours (that was when it was 120 minutes instead of
180).

All twins should fly on one engine after a fashion, for conventional
flight this is not too big a problem. The trade off is smaller because
you can trade climb performance, altitude and airspeed (to an extent)
for the extra power needed, so you don't need twice the power needed for
take-off to fly.

>The V-22 IIRC is supposed to be able to land vertically on one engine,
>and take off empty in an emergency on one engine. I'm not sure this
>has been demonstrated yet.

The scenario I'm thinking of is a heavily laden V-22 leaving a carrier
with an engine failure occurring during transition. With very little
height or forward speed to play with (and the possible need to return to
the carrier for safe [vertical?] landing), it needs enough power to
maintain height on a single engine (by definition equal to its weight).

This scenario is significant because this is where many Harrier losses
occur (a problem that will always exist with fixed wing VSTOL aircraft
due to the envelope they operate in when hovering). There is no other
way to save the aircraft other than brute force vertical thrust.

The only way round it may be to take-off with a low fuel load and refuel
immediately, but that takes away some of the efficiency advantages the
V-22 claims.

--
John

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>Either you folks are operating some fairly dangerous aircraft or else
>you have a training problem. Scaled back to 10,000 operational hour
>rates and assuming Class A equates with 'loss of aircraft' (which
>isn't quite true - rates would be lower under 'loss of aircraft'
>criteria), various US types in our service would have the rates below:
>
>AV-8B - 1.2
>F/A-18 - 0.3
>F-16 - 0.35
>F-15 - 0.5

Just out of interest how would the stats look if you went from
operational hours to launch/recovery cycles?

Given that the Harriers usually have much shorter sorties time wise
(from memory averaging less than an hour in GWI?) and the others often
fly much longer sorties with multiple refuellings. Since most accidents
happen during launch/recovery, the longer the sortie, the lower your
accident rate becomes statistically per operational hour.

--
John

[Guy Alcala]

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Iain Rae > wrote:
> :>
> :<snip>
> :
> :> :> So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
> :> :> one proves up wrong?
> :> :well, the statement was
> :> :"It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher."
> :> :
> :> :you're the one who limited it to pilots.
> :>
> :> Your maintenance grunts go through that?
> :
> :No, neither do our pilots, it's a submarine commanders course. FFS go
> :out and try to buy yourself a sense of humour and then read the
> :submersible harrier threads.
>
> Go read them yourself. You'll find my name. I just don't
> automatically remember nicknames for YOUR training.
>
> :> :> Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....
> :> :
> :> :Well, if that's how you want to tar yourself go ahead.
> :>
> :> Somehow, I knew you'd try this sort of trolling misdirection from your
> :> own behaviour. Either address the real issue or shut up.
> :>
> :> AV-8 has 4 times the major accident rate of the other fixed wing
> :> aircraft the Marines fly (the F/A-18) in US service. The human error
> :> rate is over twice as large, and the catastrophic mechanical failure
> :> rate is EIGHT times as large. Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
> :> as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
> :> the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
> :> and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
> :> you. The human error rate also shouldn't come as a huge surprise to
> :> anyone with two neurons to slap wetly together, since vertical landing
> :> is obviously difficult.
> :>
> :> Then comes you. So, tell me - just how is the statement that the AV-8
> :> is the most dangerous aircraft currently in US service incorrect (or
> :> even surprising) given the preceding?
> :
> :It's not. I never claimed otherwise, clearly though from the article
> :human error also applies to the ground crew, not just the pilots. And
> :the article seems to imply that this is above the norm. To add to your
> :list of reasons above I'd imagine that an aircraft which is being
> :maintained out of rough forward bases is going to have a higher level of
> :ground crew ****ups than one which is based on a carrier or at a base.
>
> Except, despite the ability, most AV-8s in US service aren't "being
> maintained out of rough forward bases" most of the time.
>
> :> So, what's the accident rate (under the same criteria used in the US)
> :> for the Harrier in British service? No fair comparing apples and
> :> aardvarks; you have to use the same criteria.
> :
> :The only info I have is for all RAF harrier types (GR7 and T10) from
> :1988 to 2001 which lists the damage rate per 10,000 hours at 1.17.
>
> Ok. First scale it to 100,000 hours, which is how we measure them.
> That gets you to 11.7, which is not appreciably different than the
> 12/100,000 hours that we're seeing on the Harrier.
>
> :The figures are for "damaged beyond local repair" or "loss of aircraft",
> :there's no monetary value attached .
>
> Now add in those accidents which caused sufficient damage to qualify
> as Class A but did not involve the loss of the aircraft (the value of
> which is well over the limits of Class A). It looks to me like the
> Class A accident rate for the Harrier in British service is *HIGHER*
> than that for the aircraft in US service.
>
> Still not quite the same thing, since the numbers largely represent
> different Marks of Harrier, but indicative that in general this
> aircraft has a much higher major accident rate than is usual.
>
> :For comparison the Jaguar is listed at 1.13 and the GR1/GR4 is listed
> :at 0.65.
>
> Either you folks are operating some fairly dangerous aircraft or else
> you have a training problem.

The Brit attack a/c spend a lot more time at low level than we do.

> Scaled back to 10,000 operational hour
> rates and assuming Class A equates with 'loss of aircraft' (which
> isn't quite true - rates would be lower under 'loss of aircraft'
> criteria), various US types in our service would have the rates below:
>
> AV-8B - 1.2
> F/A-18 - 0.3
> F-16 - 0.35
> F-15 - 0.5
>
> If you want to go by European loss rate per 10,000 hours, for
> 'fighters' (various aircraft types, of course) the data for 2000 looks
> like:
>
> USAFE - 0.54 (all F-15s)
> Britain - 0.15
> Czech - 8.0
> France - 0.29
> Greece - 1.0
> Italy - 0.5
> Poland - 0.75
> Romania - 1.5
> Spain - 0.48
> Turkey - 0.71
>
> Everyone else had 0 (and the Germans and Israelis didn't report number
> of hours flown, so nobody knows what their rates are). It's of note
> that Britain, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Turkey are reporting
> an order of magnitude more flying hours than the others, so a single
> crash for the US in Europe would jump the rate a lot more - if you're
> under 100,000 flight hours, the statistics may not even out for any
> given year.

Do the above rates include the navies of those countries? If so, both Italy and
Spain operate the AV-8B+.

Guy

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Iain Rae > wrote:
> :>
> :<snip>
> :
> :> :> So the game is to just keep changing the statement when the preceding
> :> :> one proves up wrong?
> :> :well, the statement was
> :> :"It's a training problem - marines don't have to take perisher."
> :> :
> :> :you're the one who limited it to pilots.
> :>
> :> Your maintenance grunts go through that?
> :
> :No, neither do our pilots, it's a submarine commanders course. FFS go
> :out and try to buy yourself a sense of humour and then read the
> :submersible harrier threads.
>
> Go read them yourself. You'll find my name. I just don't
> automatically remember nicknames for YOUR training.
>
> :> :> Yeah, that shows a lot of intellectual integrity....
> :> :
> :> :Well, if that's how you want to tar yourself go ahead.
> :>
> :> Somehow, I knew you'd try this sort of trolling misdirection from your
> :> own behaviour. Either address the real issue or shut up.
> :>
> :> AV-8 has 4 times the major accident rate of the other fixed wing
> :> aircraft the Marines fly (the F/A-18) in US service. The human error
> :> rate is over twice as large, and the catastrophic mechanical failure
> :> rate is EIGHT times as large. Now, the mechanical rate shouldn't come
> :> as a surprise to anyone with two neurons to rub together, given that
> :> the AV-8 is older technology, more mechanically complex to begin with,
> :> and only has a single engine so any engine failure pretty much toasts
> :> you. The human error rate also shouldn't come as a huge surprise to
> :> anyone with two neurons to slap wetly together, since vertical landing
> :> is obviously difficult.
> :>
> :> Then comes you. So, tell me - just how is the statement that the AV-8
> :> is the most dangerous aircraft currently in US service incorrect (or
> :> even surprising) given the preceding?
> :
> :It's not. I never claimed otherwise, clearly though from the article
> :human error also applies to the ground crew, not just the pilots. And
> :the article seems to imply that this is above the norm. To add to your
> :list of reasons above I'd imagine that an aircraft which is being
> :maintained out of rough forward bases is going to have a higher level of
> :ground crew ****ups than one which is based on a carrier or at a base.
>
> Except, despite the ability, most AV-8s in US service aren't "being
> maintained out of rough forward bases" most of the time.
>
> :> So, what's the accident rate (under the same criteria used in the US)
> :> for the Harrier in British service? No fair comparing apples and
> :> aardvarks; you have to use the same criteria.
> :
> :The only info I have is for all RAF harrier types (GR7 and T10) from
> :1988 to 2001 which lists the damage rate per 10,000 hours at 1.17.
>
> Ok. First scale it to 100,000 hours, which is how we measure them.
> That gets you to 11.7, which is not appreciably different than the
> 12/100,000 hours that we're seeing on the Harrier.
>
> :The figures are for "damaged beyond local repair" or "loss of aircraft",
> :there's no monetary value attached .
>
> Now add in those accidents which caused sufficient damage to qualify
> as Class A but did not involve the loss of the aircraft (the value of
> which is well over the limits of Class A). It looks to me like the
> Class A accident rate for the Harrier in British service is *HIGHER*
> than that for the aircraft in US service.

I think the figures I gave will include your "class A", I'd imagine
anything that's going to cost $1,000,000 plus is outwith normal squadron
maintenance. Ok some might not but you're probably going to get repairs
that are below that which are handled off site. It seem a reasonable bet
to me that they're going to balance out.

[Iain Rae]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> "Fred J. McCall" wrote:
>
<snip>
>>:For comparison the Jaguar is listed at 1.13 and the GR1/GR4 is listed
>>:at 0.65.
>>
>>Either you folks are operating some fairly dangerous aircraft or else
>>you have a training problem.
>
>
> The Brit attack a/c spend a lot more time at low level than we do.
>

The figures for the F2 and F3 tornado (the interceptor version) are
0.2 so I guess most of the difference is going to be related to the low
level flying that goes with the GR4's

[Fred J. McCall]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message

:>
:> Yeah. I know. The claim is that reliability has improved so much
:> over the past decades that it is now perfectly reasonable to adopt
:> Naval aircraft with single engines.
:
:YM, readopt single-engine aircrfat. The Navy used to have no major problem
:with single-engine fighter/attack aircraft. Counting only jets, the service
:has had about as many single engine types as twins. And some of those were
:regarded as great aircraft (the A-4 for example)

We used to accept as routine much higher accident rates than we do
now. The F-8, for example (an incredible airplane for its day), had a
Class A accident rate of 14/100,000 hours and was regarded as a great
airplane. Note the criticism the AV-8 is taking with an accident rate
significantly lower than this.

:> Needless to say, I'm not convinced. I'm even less convinced about
:> that whole lift-fan drive train for the -C version.
:
:Just to avoid confusion, the STOVL version is the F-35B

Yeah. Brainfarts happen. :-)

: It may make
:> transitions and hover easier - but only up until the first non-perfect
:> moment of the hardware has. It strikes me as a smoking hole waiting
:> to happen.
:
:True of any direct lift aircraft doing a VL, really. The Boeing design
:depended on having two long diverter ducts with various valves and gates
:working right. The McDD proposal depended on a second whole engine, which
:would have had to start reliably every time after cold soaking at
:operational altitudes for a few hours. It's simply that VL is inherently a
:difficult regime to work in.

I still think the Boeing approach made the most sense, based on what
we know about this stuff. But man, that was an ugly airplane!

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Guy Alcala > wrote:
>
> :"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
> :>
> :> Either you folks are operating some fairly dangerous aircraft or else
> :> you have a training problem.
> :
> :The Brit attack a/c spend a lot more time at low level than we do.
>
> True for the Tornados. Not so much for the others, I don't believe.

The RAF's low flying page says of the large scale training excercise:

"most of those carried out in the UK will generally involve a mix of
Tornado GR1s, Harriers, Sea Harriers and/or Jaguars at low level"


and the pages mention every type except the nimrod, certainly I've seen
hercules doing lowish flying (below 2,500ft) whilst walking in the
highlands.


NB the RAF definitions of "low flying":


"Military fixed-wing aircraft (except Bulldogs and Fireflies) are
defined as low flying when operating within the UKLFS at less than 2,000
ft minimum separation distance (msd). In the case of helicopters,
Bulldogs and Fireflies, they are defined as low flying when operating at
less than 500 ft msd. 250 ft is the normal lower limit for low flying by
fixed-wing aircraft, although a very small amount of operational low
flying training for fast jet and Hercules transport aircraft is
permitted during the day at heights between 250 ft and 100 ft. Bulldog
and Firefly aircraft may be authorised to fly down to 50 ft msd while
helicopters can be permitted to fly as low as ground level."

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Iain Rae
> writes
>NB the RAF definitions of "low flying":
>
>
>"Military fixed-wing aircraft (except Bulldogs and Fireflies) are
>defined as low flying when operating within the UKLFS at less than 2,000
>ft minimum separation distance (msd). In the case of helicopters,
>Bulldogs and Fireflies, they are defined as low flying when operating at
>less than 500 ft msd. 250 ft is the normal lower limit for low flying by
>fixed-wing aircraft, although a very small amount of operational low
>flying training for fast jet and Hercules transport aircraft is
>permitted during the day at heights between 250 ft and 100 ft. Bulldog
>and Firefly aircraft may be authorised to fly down to 50 ft msd while
>helicopters can be permitted to fly as low as ground level."

Where does the 250ft limit cover geographically? I was on the end of
Blackpool south pier on Friday, two Jaguars were making very low passes
very close to the end of it (on the sea side). I couldn't estimate how
high they were, but it looked lower than 250ft to me (probably
misleading). I guess as the tide was in, they were over the sea so maybe
the limits are different?

--
John

[The Revolution Will Not Be Televised]

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 12:38:56 +0100, Andy Dingley
> wrote:

>I've been _blown_over_ by propwash from a low Hercules, whilst walking
>on Salisbury Plain.

Yeah, I've drunk the Bishop's Tipple at that pub as well, I believe.

> The ranges were closed (red flags out), but we
>weren't on the range.

Of course not...

I did see a Herc and, later on, a Canberra fly below me once*.

Gavin Bailey

[*OK, I was 2,000 feet up a mountain on the west coast at the time.]


--

Another user rings. "I need more space" he says.
"Well, why not move to Texas?", I ask. - The ******* Operator From Hell

[John Halliwell]

In article et>,
Robert > writes
>"John Halliwell" > wrote in message
>>
>> All twins should fly on one engine after a fashion, for conventional
>> flight this is not too big a problem. The trade off is smaller because
>> you can trade climb performance, altitude and airspeed (to an extent)
>> for the extra power needed, so you don't need twice the power needed for
>> take-off to fly.
>
>You do to be certified for passengers.

That would require the aircraft to take-off fully laden on half the
available engines! Whilst some might be capable of doing it, I'd be very
surprised if it is a certification requirement.

>Engine out on takeoff is a definite design issue that everyone has to deal
>with.

True, but airlines have more ability to match the aircraft type and
take-off weight to the runways they expect to use them from. As you're
runway length tends towards zero, things become more critical.

Yes, but these are in service decisions (or procurement decisions I
guess).

>The design requirement for power is to survive an engine out just after
>reaching the "too fast to abort takeoff" speed at maximum weight.

Wouldn't that require V1 and V2 to be the same? How can you calculate
what V1 and V2 should be for certification given you don't know the
runway length and atmospheric conditions?

> If you
>don't have a big enough engine you have to restrict the plane to lighter
>weight and/or longer runways.

Yes.

>This relates to ETOPS in that you have to do this without exceeding redline
>on the engine. And you have to be able to cruise on one engine in the safe
>power range.
>
>One of the "good" features of turbine engines is that if you don't care
>about destroying them you can run them at like 150% maximum power for a few
>minutes. This can gets you out of "oh ****" flying problems.
>
>> >The V-22 IIRC is supposed to be able to land vertically on one engine,
>> >and take off empty in an emergency on one engine. I'm not sure this
>> >has been demonstrated yet.
>>
>> The scenario I'm thinking of is a heavily laden V-22 leaving a carrier
>> with an engine failure occurring during transition. With very little
>> height or forward speed to play with (and the possible need to return to
>> the carrier for safe [vertical?] landing), it needs enough power to
>> maintain height on a single engine (by definition equal to its weight).
>
>This supposed to be a high performance aircraft. You want to hang a round a
>hot LZ while charlie-in-the-treeline or Abdul with an RPG shoots at you?
>Having "excess power"
>is a good thing. So the combination of "military power" and reduced
>performance means you only need 1.5x as much engine as the minimum to hover.

Yes, excess 'power' (engine power) is a good thing, the problem with
VSTOL ops is that it is very expensive as far as extra weight goes to
keep the > 1:1 thrust/weight ratio. The bigger the engines the more
power you need to lift the aircraft, the more power to turn them 90
degrees (bigger/heavier mechanisms, more weight, more power etc.). With
a built-in multiplier of 1.5x things are so much harder and weight
elsewhere in the aircraft will always be at a premium.

I don't have the figures to hand, but I guess a 777 has about 100K lbs
thrust to get a 3-400K lbs aircraft off the deck. The engine power
required is much more efficient for conventional aircraft.

>Remember these are "prop" planes not rockets so it DOESN'T need
>thrust >= weight to hover, unlike a Harrier.

Yes, it does. The thrust generated by the 'props' must be greater than
the weight for it to lift off, must be equal for it to hover. The
'props' probably make the engines more efficient at generating that
thrust, but they must do so to lift it. Presumably the engines are rated
in SHP and not lbs thrust?
g
--
John

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Iain Rae
> writes
>We were ridge walking and did the <hear noise, look up..., look
>round..., look up again...> "oh look he's down there" thing which you
>get used to with jets but I still find odd with something that big.

Years ago I saw two pairs of Tornados very low over Thirlmere, I was
halfway up Helvellyn at the time.

--
John

[Fred J. McCall]

Andy Dingley > wrote:

:On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:16:34 +0100, Iain Rae >
:wrote:
:
:>and the pages mention every type except the nimrod, certainly I've seen
:>hercules doing lowish flying (below 2,500ft) whilst walking in the
:>highlands.
:
:I've been _blown_over_ by propwash from a low Hercules, whilst walking
:on Salisbury Plain. The ranges were closed (red flags out), but we
:weren't on the range.
:
:LAPES, I think.

And hardly unique to the RAF. The original argument was that the RAF
has more accidents because they fly lower than USAF do.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Chris Manteuffel]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in message >...
> Iain Rae > wrote:

<snip>

> :The only info I have is for all RAF harrier types (GR7 and T10) from
> :1988 to 2001 which lists the damage rate per 10,000 hours at 1.17.

<snip>

> If you want to go by European loss rate per 10,000 hours, for
> 'fighters' (various aircraft types, of course) the data for 2000 looks
> like:

<snip>

> Britain - 0.15

<snip>

How much difference is there between loss rate and the major damage
rate? I ask because it seems frightening to me that the damage rate
for the Harrier is 8 times the loss rate of all British fighter types
in European airspace. Even if the difference is a factor of 2 then the
Harrier in RAF service is four times more dangerous then all fighter
types in RAF service in Europe.

If Europe is defined for the purposes of Fred's numbers to include
British airspace (which sounds likely from what he says about British
numbers being an order of magnitude greater then American numbers)
then the .15 loss rate for RAF fighter types seems to be a good solid
number that fairly represents the average RAF fighter type loss rate.

Then the question becomes how much improvement in loss rates has there
been since 1988? Has the Harriers loss numbers improved dramatically
since then? If the numbers are still roughly the same (they seem to be
from a curosary glance at the USMC numbers but I can't seem to find
good RAF loss rates numbers, because I don't know where to look) then
is something else wrong?

Chris Manteuffel

[Moggycat]

Andy Dingley > wrote
> I've been _blown_over_ by propwash from a low Hercules, whilst walking
> on Salisbury Plain. The ranges were closed (red flags out), but we
> weren't on the range.

B/f has been blown out of a tree by a tree-top skimming Vulcan. What
was he doing up the tree? He lived near an air base and the tree
seemed like a good vantage point to watch the Vulcan take off (which
was also the reason it was treetop skimming).

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>Andy Dingley > wrote:
>
>:On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 09:16:34 +0100, Iain Rae >
>:wrote:
>:
>:>and the pages mention every type except the nimrod, certainly I've seen
>:>hercules doing lowish flying (below 2,500ft) whilst walking in the
>:>highlands.
>:
>:I've been _blown_over_ by propwash from a low Hercules, whilst walking
>:on Salisbury Plain. The ranges were closed (red flags out), but we
>:weren't on the range.
>:
>:LAPES, I think.
>
>And hardly unique to the RAF. The original argument was that the RAF
>has more accidents because they fly lower than USAF do.

Anecdotally seems to be the case, including personal experience (is that
an aluminium cloud overhead? No, it's just a Vulcan practicing low-level
flight...)

Hard to find solid evidence, though.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[Chris Manteuffel]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...

> http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/stats/ukds/2002/pdf/chap4.pdf
>
> One of the problems is that a single collision can skew the figures
> badly given the small numbers of the Harrier fleet

Indeed. The damage/10,000 hours operation is a useful stat, though,
which should be fairly accurate over the life of a long lived
airplane.

RAF Damage Rate/10,000 hours operation (over lifetime), sorted
descending order
Harrier: 1.19
Jaguar: 1.10
Tornado GR: 0.65
Hawk: 0.46
Chinook: 0.44
Puma: 0.37
Gazelle: 0.31
Tornado F: 0.29
Bulldog: 0.20
Wessex: 0.18
Sea King: 0.14
Jetstream: 0.09
Tucano: 0.08
Hercules: 0.04
Chipmunk: 0.04

RN FAA Damage Rate/10,000 hours operation

Sea Harrier 2.21
Merlin: 1.79
Sea King: 0.51
Lynx: 0.43
Jetstream: 0.08

The Army helo's are between .3 and .45

Note that while for most aircraft this is the average over the entire
history of the type, there are a few exceptions. The Harrier numbers
count trainers but, in the RAF case, not editions before the GR.7. The
Tornado numbers are also specific, the GR.1 and the GR.4, and the F2 &
F3 are split up.

Note two things: A) the Harrier is the most dangerous aircraft that
the British military operates, in terms of damage/hour operation,
exceeding all helocopters as well. B) RAF GR.7 & T.10 damage rates are
almost exactly those of the USMC in terms of damage/hour operation.

For all but the newest airplanes I think these numbers are fairly
accurate representation of damage rates. (e.g. the Merlin numbers
might be a bit high because it is so new, but as for the rest...)

Also, people who go low do worse then people who go high (compare
Tornado F versus Tornado GR).

> That single loss translates into a loss per 10,000 hour rate
> of 1.83. In that year there were no losses for Sea Kings so they
> appear very safe.

So you have hours of operation numbers per year? Where? I don't see
them in this document.

> I'll lay odds that after this years fatal mid air over the Gulf the
> Sea King figures will look awful.

Yes, but I would think that the damage/10,000 hours over the entire
lifespan would take a hit, but not a serious one.

Chris Manteuffel

[Fred J. McCall]

Iain Rae > wrote:

:As much operational low flying training as possible is carried
:out overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA.

Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as
much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here
to do their training at it whenever possible?

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :As much operational low flying training as possible is carried
> :out overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA.
>
> Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as
> much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here
> to do their training at it whenever possible?
>
Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.

[Brian Allardice]

In article >,
says...

>Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
>The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.

You might not credit it, but such training has given rise to bitter complaints
in Canada: "You are scaring the caribou"

Cheers,
dba

[Iain Rae]

Brian Allardice wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>
>>Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
>>The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.
>
>
> You might not credit it, but such training has given rise to bitter complaints
> in Canada: "You are scaring the caribou"
>
> Cheers,
> dba
>

I believe in the UK local RAF bases get phoned up and get requests along
the lines of "Could your lads please time their practice so that they're
not flying over the farm when we're bringing the cows in for
milking/shearing sheep etc.


This is of course nothing new if the chicken farmer scene in "The Dam
Busters" is anywhere near accurate :).


--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2418
School of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh

[Andy Spark]

In article >, ANDREW ROBERT BREEN
> wrote:

> Remember very vividly going over a mountain pass in IIRC the Lake District
> in the early 80s - Hardknott or Wrynose, I think - and being confronted
> with a Vulcan climbing over the pass from the other side. The sight of
> that /deleted/ monster rising over the brow of the hill was rather
> impressive, to say nothing of terrifying.

I well remember the sight (not to mention the noise and the smoke) they
used to make at the end of an airshow display, low pass along the
runway then sitting on it's tail and taking off like a Lightning..

[Andrew Chaplin]

Iain Rae wrote:

> I believe in the UK local RAF bases get phoned up and get requests along
> the lines of "Could your lads please time their practice so that they're
> not flying over the farm when we're bringing the cows in for
> milking/shearing sheep etc.
>
> This is of course nothing new if the chicken farmer scene in "The Dam
> Busters" is anywhere near accurate :).

In Canada, the main problems -- other than the Innu's concerns for the
caribou, which seem to care not a whit -- are fur and poultry farms.
Foxes, when stressed by low-flying a/c, will kill their kits. Turkeys
will get into great big pile-ups (if you time your helicopter's
reversal in course just right).

I just got back from Labrador where they actually put warnings of
low-flying a/c on the Trans-Labrador Highway (I didn't see any, damn
it). I doubt there are few places outside of Siberia where pilots can
get as low and still ****-off no one.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Iain Rae
> writes
>This is of course nothing new if the chicken farmer scene in "The Dam
>Busters" is anywhere near accurate :).

Probably happened a lot given they were basically told to go away and
become experts at low flying. According to the book The Dam Busters,
during training they were 'cruising' at 100ft, later 50ft:

"Across several counties outraged service police reached for their
notebooks and took the big AJ aircraft letters as they roared over their
heads; the complaints came flooding into Gibson's office, and with smug
rectitude he tore them up."

--
John

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Andy Spark
> writes
>I well remember the sight (not to mention the noise and the smoke) they
>used to make at the end of an airshow display, low pass along the
>runway then sitting on it's tail and taking off like a Lightning..

Apparently they sometimes started the display quite impressively,
there's footage somewhere of a Vulcan being barrel rolled on climbout at
Farnborough sometime in the '50s.

--
John

[Ian Birchenough]

In message >, Fred J. McCall
> writes
>Iain Rae > wrote:
>
>:Fred J. McCall wrote:
>:> Iain Rae > wrote:
>:>
>:> :As much operational low flying training as possible is carried
>:> :out overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA.
>:>
>:> Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as
>:> much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here
>:> to do their training at it whenever possible?
>:
>:Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
>:The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.
>
>Yeah, but if we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have ranges where it's
>allowed so there would be no place here for you to come and do it,
>either.
>
Its allowed in the UK. LFA13 down to 50 feet. (You'll need the
appropriate aviators maps.)
--
Ian Birchenough

[Fred J. McCall]

Iain Rae > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Iain Rae > wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Iain Rae > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :As much operational low flying training as possible is carried
:> :> :out overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA.
:> :>
:> :> Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as
:> :> much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here
:> :> to do their training at it whenever possible?
:> :
:> :Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
:> :The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.
:>
:> Yeah, but if we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have ranges where it's
:> allowed so there would be no place here for you to come and do it,
:> either.
:
:But it doesn't necessarily follow that you therefore do it as much if
:not more than we do, a number of Universities I've worked at have
:facilities which although they're used for research are used more by
:outside agencies since that's the only way they can be funded.

And how much do you think you're paying us for the use of our
low-level ranges? If we weren't using them, we certainly wouldn't
keep them open for you. :-)

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Iain Rae > wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :> Iain Rae > wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :As much operational low flying training as possible is carried
> :> :> :out overseas, mainly in Canada and the USA.
> :> :>
> :> :> Well, that would seem to indicate that the US is doing at least as
> :> :> much low-level flying as the RAF. Otherwise, why would they come here
> :> :> to do their training at it whenever possible?
> :> :
> :> :Mainly because you and Canada have more wide open spaces than we have.
> :> :The major limit on low flying is complaints from the civilian population.
> :>
> :> Yeah, but if we weren't doing it, we wouldn't have ranges where it's
> :> allowed so there would be no place here for you to come and do it,
> :> either.
> :
> :But it doesn't necessarily follow that you therefore do it as much if
> :not more than we do, a number of Universities I've worked at have
> :facilities which although they're used for research are used more by
> :outside agencies since that's the only way they can be funded.
>
> And how much do you think you're paying us for the use of our
> low-level ranges? If we weren't using them, we certainly wouldn't
> keep them open for you. :-)
>

For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of
airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the
area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic
control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive.

[Fred J. McCall]

Iain Rae > wrote:

:For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of
:airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the
:area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic
:control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive.

But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it
over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home? If
it's not so easy, why would we have the ranges if we didn't have our
own people who needed them?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Iain Rae]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Iain Rae > wrote:
>
> :For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of
> :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the
> :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic
> :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive.
>
> But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it
> over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home?

Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and
hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to
practice on.



--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2418
School of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh

[Andrew Chaplin]

Iain Rae wrote:
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > Iain Rae > wrote:
> >
> > :For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of
> > :airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the
> > :area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic
> > :control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive.
> >
> > But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it
> > over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home?
>
> Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and
> hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to
> practice on.

I can only suppose you have never seen CFB Suffield. A "wider variety
of terrain" and "Suffield" do not often make their way into the same
sentence. (It's really f*ing flat!)

I think actually the main argument is that fewer people will be upset
by the activity (environmental impacts are actually significant -- for
the armoured battle group exercises, at least -- the prairie does take
time to recover) and less political capital has to be expended.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Iain Rae]

Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> Iain Rae wrote:
>
>>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>
>>>Iain Rae > wrote:
>>>
>>>:For low flying (not weapons delivery) what's involved? An area of
>>>:airspace dedicated for use, Military air traffic control to cover the
>>>:area and some kind of liasion with the local civilian air traffic
>>>:control. I doubt that's going to be all that expensive.
>>>
>>>But more expensive than not having it. If it's so easy, why do it
>>>over here (which has to be more expensive) rather than at home?
>>
>>Same reason that we do tank training over in Canada, more space and
>>hence less environmental impact, plus a wider variety of terrain to
>>practice on.
>
>
> I can only suppose you have never seen CFB Suffield. A "wider variety
> of terrain" and "Suffield" do not often make their way into the same
> sentence. (It's really f*ing flat!)

I meant more variety of terrain for the RAF to train on, I doubt they'll
get much experience of terrain following in a woodland environment up in
the North of Scotland.




> --
> Andrew Chaplin
> SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
> (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)


--
Iain Rae Tel:01316505202
Computing Officer JCMB:2418
School of Informatics
The University of Edinburgh

[El Bastardo]

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:12:19 +0100, Brian Cleverly
> wrote:

>ISTR back in the 80's when the Lebanon problems were surfacing, the Americans
>did a show of force by flying low across Beiruit just above the Rooftops. The
>RAF did a similar flag waving exercise, with Buccaneers flying - between -
>the rooftops, just to show how low flying skills should be done.

Not to mention demonstrating how to steal other people's drying
laundry.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Brian Cleverly <Brian.cle
> writes
>ISTR back in the 80's when the Lebanon problems were surfacing, the Americans
>did a show of force by flying low across Beiruit just above the Rooftops. The
>RAF did a similar flag waving exercise, with Buccaneers flying - between -
>the rooftops, just to show how low flying skills should be done.
>
Didn't Brick pilots get nosebleeds if they flew as high as a rooftop?
--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[El Bastardo]

On 13 Aug 2003 20:29:01 +0100, (ANDREW ROBERT BREEN)
wrote:

>In article >,
>El *******o <El *******o> wrote:
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:12:19 +0100, Brian Cleverly
> wrote:
>>
>>>ISTR back in the 80's when the Lebanon problems were surfacing, the Americans
>>>did a show of force by flying low across Beiruit just above the Rooftops. The
>>>RAF did a similar flag waving exercise, with Buccaneers flying - between -
>>>the rooftops, just to show how low flying skills should be done.
>>
>>Not to mention demonstrating how to steal other people's drying
>>laundry.
>
>Well, at one stage the Buccaneer was considered to be the ultimate
>knicker-remover..

Well. After flying down a narrow street, between rooftops, I am sure
the pilot would be in need of some clean knickers.

Of course, everybody else on the street would need them too.

[Kristan Roberge]

John Halliwell wrote:

> have been fixed. It's a very complex creature and Bell/Boeing are
> determined to try to fix it (tilt-rotor being their pet technology)
> rather than look at other alternatives which may have fewer built in
> problems.

The problems can be traced back to the fact that its a compromise design
based
around the ships it'll be operating from primarily. The physical size limits
of the V22
are totally restricted by the flight deck and elevator clearance issues for
the wasp-class
LHDs. Rotor diameter was restricted by needing a minimum blade-tip clearance
of 12 feet
with the island and a 5 foot clearance between the edge of the deck and the
osprey's wheels.
The blade, wing and naccele folding procedure were limited by the elevator
size on the LHDs.
Bigger elevators would have meant more room for useful things like bigger
engines, 4 blade rotors
and a longer wingspan (all of which would have improved the type's
performance in both the
hover and more importantly, single-engine operation). The previous XV-15
program operated
so well for over a decade because it wasn't tooo much airframe for too
little installed power/rotor
lift.