Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
I'm not following.
Fact: 40% of the F-15A-D aircraft have longerons that are thinner than the design called for.
Only one failed because it was the thinnest of the sub-standard longerons and it cracked and failed first. Once the accident happened in Nov, the inspections started and at least 6 more cracked longerons were found. Those would have failed "due to faulty manufacturing" too if they'd been allowed to continue flying.
Those that hadn't cracked yet are now on an enhanced inspection schedule to avoid flying cracked and "failing due to faulty manufacturing". The fact that there's only been one catastrophic failure has nothing to do with some inherent design strength of the Eagle, but rather, an aggressive stand down, inspection and ID of the cause for the original failure.
Don't get me wrong, Biff, I’m not bashing the Eagle. I’ve got 2000 hours in it and there’s not another fighter on the planet I’d rather take into combat again. I'm just not sure I agree with the logic of this last post. MD porked away this longeron thing and this accident is on them. The fact that they designed the jet with a slide rule for 5k hours and 7.33G doesn't give them a pass on under spec longerons. If they were all IAW the design specs and all developing cracks, I'd be on the same page as you.
Fact: The jet that crashed was one of the top ten or fifteen most over g'd F-15's in the USAF.
Fact, the aircraft was originally designed for 7.33 g's and a much shorter lifespan.
Fact, MD asked the USAF to supply one F15 for destructive testing to determine if there were any weaknesses that needed to be worked since the jet was going well beyond it's "USAF directed design spec's".
Fact, the USAF said no.
While you would like to hang this noose around MD I would say not so fast.
Fact: 40% of the longerons were not to manufacturing specs.
Fact: 100% of the jet was not designed from the onset to be a 9g 7.5k jet
Fact: 100% of the F15A-D's are not flown as the USAF envisioned when it laid out the requirements.
Remember the F100-100 made good power originally, until you moved the throttle. Why is there dual flameout procedures in the Dash-1? Because they had them. No, the motor wasn't "designed" to have flame outs but it did. It also operated fine with how the requirements were laid out. And PW finally fixed them with the advent of the DEEC. And the ANG finally got the rest of the Eagle community to buy into the DEEC program.
A vertical tail came off the jet at Eglin doing the F22 AIM9X shots. Was it designed to do that? Nope, it failed due to water intrusion yet the restrictions still remain on the aircraft even thought they have all been repaired. Whose fault was that? MD? USAF poor mx habits?
I agree, there is no better jet to go to combat in. I've only got 2700 hours in this thing but still trust it like no plane I've ever flown. However, if a part fails well past it's design life, on a jet that is over it's initial design life, after a lifetime of over g's I would think a bit longer before I started pointing fingers. Culpability rests with all players, not just MD.