[Fineus]

Just saw this on the news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2155479.stm

Looks pretty serious! Luckily I'm not going to Farnborough this year as I'm sure it'll have a hefty knock on effect. Hopefully the SU-37 can stay in the sky slightly better than the SU-27...

[Zeronet]

A Flanker,Its probably the mechanics, if you cant maintain aircraft, you shouldnt fly them at airshows! There nothings to worry about in Western airshows, there are crowd lines and stuff.  Its a very sad disaster  

[Thorn]

Or pilot error... They dont get as much training as they should.. same reason as if it was a mechanical failure.. they cant afford to train them...

[CP5670]

This looks pretty bad, but I'm not sure if anything could really have been done to prevent this sort of thing completely.

[Stealth]

You guys remember the time that F117A was flying close over the audience and like one of the wings flew off it?

i don't think it's ever been flown in an airshow since!

[Gortef]

Oh dear that was a huge crash... absolutely horrible

[an0n]

I was expecting "Air show jet crashes into ground" not "Air show jet crashes into crowd" that's pretty damn.......errr.......'bad'.

[Fineus]

Which is why flying planes over crowds of people (for the most part) isn't allowed. I remember at Farnborough they fly them out over the countryside to the east of the show and over the large space that happens to be there... the only time anything goes over the crowd is when something like the Red Arrows show up - since they almost always do at least one flyover.

Even so, they'll be more careful now I hope. Not that that makes it any more comforting for the families of those guys...

[Pera]

Originally posted by Thorn
Or pilot error... They dont get as much training as they should.. same reason as if it was a mechanical failure.. they cant afford to train them...

The Flanker is sturdy, but hard to fly. I'd guess it's the pilots mistake, because Ukraine pilots get paid very little, and if they get a chance of making some extra by pulling off ridiculoysly dangerous stunts in airshows, they'll accept happily.

[Kazashi]

I was watching the footage on the news, that was a horrible tragedy. You can see the plane initially dragging along the ground, cutting through the crowd before plunging into a fireball - exposure to gory comptuer games and movies still doesn't prepare you for a real life indicent like this.

I did find it slightly ironic that the pilots survived the crash, while so many bystanders died. If it were me, I'd be horrified and probably wouldn't fly again. It will be interesting to see what the cause was - pilot error or mechanical failure. Crowd lines are important, but in the event of mechanical failure, it won't always help (like the Ventura at the Richmond airshow - the pilot managed tofly it over the crowd and into an empty paddock).

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by Pera


The Flanker is sturdy, but hard to fly. I'd guess it's the pilots mistake, because Ukraine pilots get paid very little, and if they get a chance of making some extra by pulling off ridiculoysly dangerous stunts in airshows, they'll accept happily.

it wasnt a exceptionally dangerous stunt i dont think, they were complicated yes, but the pilots were experianced, the Flanker is a very maneovurable craft but if something fails, then theirs nothing you can do. The Ukraines dont have enough money for spare parts etc.

[CP5670]

Even so, they'll be more careful now I hope.

It appears that they are banning the airshows altogether, which is probably a good idea until they get their military back in shape.

[Stealth]

Forget this... read my next post... it's more "ON TOPIC"

Speaking of 'spates', warm on the tail of Blather 1.16 'We're Scrambled Chaps, Grab your Brollies', there's been a few recent prangs involving if-it's-not-black-it's-pretty-damn-dark budget aircraft, in particular the disintegration of an F-117A Stealth during an airshow in Maryland, and the crash of a B-1 bomber in Montana, not to mention accidents involving more conventional U.S. military aircraft, such as the collision of two F-16s off New Jersey, and the collision of German and U.S. transport aircraft in the South Atlantic. A theory concerning the recent 'bad press' surrounding the F117A and B-2 Stealth bomber to me by one Mr. John Conniffe which involved the 'writing off' of these horribly expensive aircraft as a bad idea, i.e. that the bad publicity was deliberate, so that the planes could be taken out of service. Another theory, somewhat whackier, which allegedly came from 'Retired Air Force Colonel Donald Ware' via Dr. Richard J. Boylan, concerns the use of anti-gravity devices which are supposed to power both the F-117A, B-2 and the Lockheed-Martin space shuttle. Unfortunately they apparently have to take off using conventional methods, before switching into 'antigravity mode for extended cruising range, for lightning-fast manoeuvrability, and for shrouding the airframe in invisibility (by having its local counter-gravity field bend light around the airframe). The notorious extremely unstable lift and forward-motion of the F-117A is merely temporary, until it moves into antigravity mode, where independent field propulsion provides stability. {Unfortunately for the pilot who went down in an air show over Maryland, his Stealth fighter was in conventional jet-thrust mode at the time.)'

The rest of the statement lapses into ravings about 'free electricity machines', but some of Boylan's comments are probably worth reading, even if they are pretty much the standard 'there are things going on that we're not being told about' party line.

Boylan writes 'The military-intelligence-weapons industry complex pursues parallel development of modernized conventional technologies for several reasons. Among these are: 1) to provide "national security" cover for/distraction from covert projects under development. NASA does the same, dazzling the peons with Shuttle missions to grow petunias in low gravity in orbit, while secret, undeclared military missions travel far into space; 2) to have some obsolescent military toys (like F-15s) to sell to friendly countries and keep most of them satisfied that they are in possession of the latest weapons systems; and 3) to feed the pork barrel of multi-billions spending in the defence industry sector which Congress so effectively.' I'm sure there's plenty of developing countries who would be more than happy to get their hands on 'obsolescent military toys', F-15s being a shining example. And as for growing petunias in low gravity, after keeping a cheese plant alive in the Blather palatial residence for over a year now, successful low gravity horticulture seems to be a rather miniscule feat.

[Stealth]

September 14, 1997: During an air show in Maryland, an F117A stealth fighter crashed. The next day Holloman Air Force Base grounded its 49 stealths. What was the point in this? How would the crash of one plane have any effect on others? For the past few years, the government has been doing research on how to detect stealth fighters. This way they could stay a step ahead. Earlier this year a team of scientists,(including some of the developers of the F117A and the B-2), developed a way that they could detect the stealth, not the stealth as an object, but the electrical activity inside. They needed to test it though. Holloman couldn't give the Washington based researchers the go ahead to test the new radar for another year, because they were worried about the strength of the wave lengths that had to be used. The waves to be used caused an electrical wire to give off a pulse of radio waves which could be picked up by the normal radar system. They found a way to shape the waves that they sent out so that it would be prone to the odd shape of the stealth planes and not pick up any thing else.
The team decided to use the F117A at the Maryland air show. They talked the pilot in to going in to stealth mode for two minutes during the flight so they could try their new system. The radar worked, but not the way they wanted it to. The waves caused the plane's wiring to short out and blow parts of the plane off, then crash. The reason the stealth planes were grounded was because the waves were so strong they feared that they could bounce around the earth awhile and they didn't want to risk the danger.
Again, this is idea comes from my own theories, none of it has been proven as of yet.
TRUSTNO1

[IceFire]

The simple way to tell if that F-117 was in stealth mode or not was to see if the 'dimples' as I call them were present or not.

There's a couple of places on the jet where pods are attached to allow detection during peacetime operations.

If those are on then it was never radar stealth.  If they are missing, then that supports that part of the theory.

[Darkage]

Originally posted by CP5670


It appears that they are banning the airshows altogether, which is probably a good idea until they get their military back in shape.

Thats gonna take allot off time.

[Alikchi]

I read about this in the paper today. Suckage.
Yeah, the SU-27 is pretty sturdy, but it could be mechanical failure. PIlot error, too, even - I read they ejected, though. (They? Was it a two seater? I don't know.)
Anyways, as for the SU-37..It's waaay sturdier. Here.

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Movies/su37.4.MPG

[Stryke 9]

You know, they really should have AAA guns next to the crowd areas at air shows. Be really cool, even if it weren't a safety thing.

[Nico]

according to sukhoy engineers, the Ukrainia (sp?) army hasn't bought a SINGLE component for their Su27 for 7 years now. Wonder why it crashed...