Home





Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> B-1 Loss, Old news but
Shadowforce
post Mar 13 2009, 11:50 PM
Post #1


Cessna 152 Member
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 15
Joined: 31-October 08
Member No.: 8,433



So while I was deployed last year we had an incident (I love that word) at Al Udeid. I deployed there on Jan 4 and all was well until April 4th. Well this link will tell the tale and it even has a picture which is nothing compared to the ones that I have but its eye candy at least. To bad the video doesn't show the mushroom clouds and your loudest subwoofers wouldn't crush your chest like the shockwaves did. From what I was told at the time, the bombs exploded at less than 30% of the full power(they didn't explain why but i was also told they could last 5 or so hours in a fire which was not the case). It was quite horrible to not be able to talk about it and have the phones off for 2 days. Funny thing is the story(although horribly wrong) broke within 10 minutes of it happening which is most likely due to the fact that the people in Qatar could feel and hear the explosions just as well as we could.

Oh one thing the link and the pictures does not show is the fact that it threw pieces of carbon fiber and metal 1/4 mile away yet it did not blow down a floodlight that was only feet away. Odd huh? The engines were also left intact though burned badly, and that picture is after they started tearing it apart because when I was there it still had a tail and both wings.

Anyway here is the link, and for once I can say that the Air Force is not leaving out details.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/...ccident_100308/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjb4000
post Mar 16 2009, 07:07 AM
Post #2


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 2,718
Joined: 13-December 04
From: Rhode Island / Daytona Beach, FL / Washington, DC
Member No.: 365



QUOTE
Shelton countered the right-hand turn by speeding up the jet’s right-side No. 4 engine, while keeping the other engines at idle. It worked but accelerated the jet to 14 mph.


Seems to me like a smarter reaction would have been to shut down the engines when the jet was taxiing at 3 mph… Oh well, I guess that's something that happens once in a pilot's career so they probably don't spend the time training procedures for it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shadowforce
post Mar 16 2009, 01:09 PM
Post #3


Cessna 152 Member
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 15
Joined: 31-October 08
Member No.: 8,433



QUOTE(rjb4000 @ Mar 16 2009, 05:07 AM) [snapback]130467[/snapback]
Seems to me like a smarter reaction would have been to shut down the engines when the jet was taxiing at 3 mph… Oh well, I guess that's something that happens once in a pilot's career so they probably don't spend the time training procedures for it.


I suppose we may never know what cause that reaction though in retrospect its easy to say "should have" aint it. People even say "should have" to the US Airways incident even though it turned out textbook.

It wouldn't have been so bad "IF" they never took off if they didn't plan on dropping the bombs but hey someone there told me they will drop a 500lb bomb on just 1 person. Guess nobody needed to die and as such it was pregnant with 500 and 2000 pounders.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ChillSpiller
post Mar 16 2009, 07:17 PM
Post #4


Space Shuttle Member
******

Group: FL350 CREW
Posts: 681
Joined: 29-April 05
From: Germany (EDDF)
Member No.: 1,443



Interesting story. Makes me wonder why the B1 doesn't have redundant braking systems... Most if not all heavies have it that way. 747 for example has two pairs of brakecircuits on each main landing gear. The second one mostly used for parking, but its the same technique. Usually almost every system is redundant. Is there any more information regarding that accident? I guess they wont have such a thing as an accident report for the general public?

QUOTE(Shadowforce @ Mar 14 2009, 04:50 AM) [snapback]130440[/snapback]
From what I was told at the time, the bombs exploded at less than 30% of the full power(they didn't explain why but i was also told they could last 5 or so hours in a fire which was not the case)

I'll make a guess. They won't have as much power when lying in a fire because of the metall hull loosing its mechanical strength. The Hull gets softer while being exposed to such a heat and therefore the explosion looses power. After all the power or type of an explosion is influenced by its hull.
E.g. light up some gunpowder and it will simply burn away. Wrap it and pack it into paper and it'll make a little bang. Fill it into a metal tube and it'll explode.
As a second theory I could imagine that there is a difference in how an explosive is triggered (from the inside by a fuse or from the outside). Quite similar to the fuel/air mixture in a piston engine. It depends on where it is ignited. To increase its efficiency you will want the flames to equally distribute themselves threw out the mixture.
The bombs can last 5 hrs they don't have to though. After all the article said that a pair of 2000 pounders were still intact when the fire was finally out.

just my 2cents, Chill
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shadowforce
post Mar 16 2009, 11:32 PM
Post #5


Cessna 152 Member
*

Group: Newbies
Posts: 15
Joined: 31-October 08
Member No.: 8,433



QUOTE(ChillSpiller @ Mar 16 2009, 05:17 PM) [snapback]130470[/snapback]
Interesting story. Makes me wonder why the B1 doesn't have redundant braking systems... Most if not all heavies have it that way. 747 for example has two pairs of brakecircuits on each main landing gear. The second one mostly used for parking, but its the same technique. Usually almost every system is redundant. Is there any more information regarding that accident? I guess they wont have such a thing as an accident report for the general public?
I'll make a guess. They won't have as much power when lying in a fire because of the metall hull loosing its mechanical strength. The Hull gets softer while being exposed to such a heat and therefore the explosion looses power. After all the power or type of an explosion is influenced by its hull.
E.g. light up some gunpowder and it will simply burn away. Wrap it and pack it into paper and it'll make a little bang. Fill it into a metal tube and it'll explode.
As a second theory I could imagine that there is a difference in how an explosive is triggered (from the inside by a fuse or from the outside). Quite similar to the fuel/air mixture in a piston engine. It depends on where it is ignited. To increase its efficiency you will want the flames to equally distribute themselves threw out the mixture.
The bombs can last 5 hrs they don't have to though. After all the article said that a pair of 2000 pounders were still intact when the fire was finally out.

just my 2cents, Chill


True, true. And there was also yellow chunks of whatever kind of explosive they use all over the place. The wouldn't even let us on that side of the airfield until the boms and most of the serious explosive chunks were gone. At least that one thing I got to see in my stay in the AF that I hope i'll never see on this civilian side, especially if i'm on the plane.

But this kinda goes to show you how fast and bad carbon composites burn. I heard the plane was reduced to what you see in less than 5 minutes(I was asleep for most of the explosions and only got to see 1 small and 1 big mushroom cloud).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

 
 
Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th June 2013 - 03:46 AM

Home | Webmail | Forum | Random Video Generator | Link to us | Aircraft Fact Sheets | Help
Upload videos | Become a videographer | Terms of Use | Privacy | Contact us | About Flightlevel350.com | Ad Choices

© 2004 - 2009 Flightlevel350.com
Aviation Videos - Airplane Videos - Loudest place on the web!