[QUOTE]A Chinese FBC-1 "Flying Leopard" jet plunged to the ground and exploded
during an air show in the central province of Shaanxi on Friday, state-run media
reported—at least the second time such a Chinese fighter-bomber has crashed
since July 2009.
[IMG]http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/WO-AH408_CJET_G_20111014181747.jpg[/IMG]
CCTV/Reuters
A plane nosedives at an air show in China's Shaanxi
province Friday.
Footage aired by state-run broadcaster China Central Television on Friday
showed a pilot ejecting from the two-seater, also known as a JH-7, before it hit
the ground.
The state-run Xinhua news agency said that one pilot had been trapped in the
jet and was missing, while the pilot who ejected sustained minor injuries.
Xinhua quoted He Liang, a member of the air show's executive committee, as
saying a team had been dispatched to the site to search for the missing pilot.
In July 2009, an FBC-1 crashed during a training exercise in the northeast
province of Jilin. Both men aboard were reportedly killed, according to the
Communist Party's Global Times newspaper. The jet, variations of which have been
in the sky for decades, is a longtime contributor to China's navy and air force.
[/QUOTE]
Chinese Jet - Made in China
Chinese Pilots - Made in China
They have to search for the missing pilot?
Pretty sure he's where the plane is.
[QUOTE=Valdor;32788927]They have to search for the missing pilot?
Pretty sure he's where the plane is.[/QUOTE]
This was all a facade so he could ditch the country for San Francisco.
Classic stall. He was going too slow, tried to turn, his wing dropped and that was it. Not enough power to pull out of the dive.
It's the kind of stuff they teach you on your fourth or fifth flight lesson in the states.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789096]Classic stall. He was going too slow, tried to turn, his wing dropped and that was it. Not enough power to pull out of the dive.
It's the kind of stuff they teach you on your fourth or fifth flight lesson in the states.[/QUOTE]
I thought they taught you about stalls like, your first flight lesson. Stalling is probably the single most important thing to avoid next to running into something.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32789134]I thought they taught you about stalls like, your first flight lesson. Stalling is probably the single most important thing to avoid next to running into something.[/QUOTE]
I didn't start learning about stalls till about my third trip into the training area.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789096]Classic stall. He was going too slow, tried to turn, his wing dropped and that was it. Not enough power to pull out of the dive.
It's the kind of stuff they teach you on your fourth or fifth flight lesson in the states.[/QUOTE]
Yep, turned too hard and too slow, stalled, wing drops and points the nose to the ground, and he didn't have enough power or altitude to have a prayer at pulling out of the dive. That close to the ground, there aren't many planes that could get out of the dive in time.
Seems like a really simple mistake, anybody that's played a basic flight simulator will pick up a feel for how that happens. I don't know what he was attempting to demonstrate, but anyone with the experience of a military pilot should have a feel for where your stall speed is.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;32789152]I didn't start learning about stalls till about my third trip into the training area.[/QUOTE]
Oh, ok. It just seems like something so important that you would want to learn about it before you even knew where all the instruments even are.
"Hey guys, before we are going to even let you sit inside a plane, you need to fucking learn about this shit." sort of thing.
If you understand the instruments, then you can easily avoid a stall ;)
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789377]If you understand the instruments, then you can easily avoid a stall ;)[/QUOTE]
Well obviously not for this pilot.
That's how it goes with Chinese fighter planes, you have one take off and 30 minutes later you need to send another one up again.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32789162]Yep, turned too hard and too slow, stalled, wing drops and points the nose to the ground, and he didn't have enough power or altitude to have a prayer at pulling out of the dive. That close to the ground, there aren't many planes that could get out of the dive in time.
Seems like a really simple mistake, anybody that's played a basic flight simulator will pick up a feel for how that happens. I don't know what he was attempting to demonstrate, but anyone with the experience of a military pilot should have a feel for where your stall speed is.[/QUOTE]
Assuming it was pilot error, and not some malfunction.
The crash happened ridiculously fast, too. The pilot could've panicked and spent time ejecting instead of trying to pull the plane up.
[QUOTE=Valdor;32788927]They have to search for the missing pilot?
Pretty sure he's where the plane is.[/QUOTE]
"There he is!"
"Over there!"
"And here!"
Oh god I am sick.
Why'd it crash anyway?
[QUOTE=A B.A. Survivor;32790396]"There he is!"
"Over there!"
"And here!"
Oh god I am sick.
Why'd it crash anyway?[/QUOTE]
Why dont you read the rest of the thread?
Thread title is misleading, the FBC-1 is for close air support not fighting other jets.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789096]Classic stall. He was going too slow, tried to turn, his wing dropped and that was it. Not enough power to pull out of the dive.
It's the kind of stuff they teach you on your fourth or fifth flight lesson in the states.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they teach it there too, it's not like they just put them in planes.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789377]If you understand the instruments, then you can easily avoid a stall ;)[/QUOTE]
Yet these happens every so often in airshows in every country, people do mistakes.
A man died.
LOL MADE IN CHIENA!!
The Made in China jokes aren't very funny. He went into a stall - it had nothing to do with the plane itself.
It was still somewhat dumb.
[QUOTE=Ridge;32789377]If you understand the instruments, then you can easily avoid a stall ;)[/QUOTE]What about a stall that is well inside the flight envelope of your aircraft; at an appropriate airspeed with a sensible attitude and rate of turn? I have had aircraft depart normal flight even when the instruments have told me it shouldn't. Infact, it can even be quite common. Unless you are an instrument rated CPL-and-higher pilot, instruments are very much a secondary source of information and should not be relied upon to provide primary flight data to the aircrew. The amount of incidents reported by the AAIB in the UK which have been the result of faulty instruments or pilots misinterpreting the readings is quite frightening. As a result, the amount of student pilots I have had to yell at for keeping their eyes in the cockpit and not looking outside must weigh in at least several dozen. As an old RAF aircrew poster says, "Heads in and not looking out, Can seriously damage your health."
[url]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/24F52181-64AD-4093-BC2B-5EDD262D015F/0/heads_in_596x833.jpg&imgWidth=400&imgHeight=250&alt=Heads%20in%20and%20not%20looking%20out...%20...can%20seriously%20damage%20your%20health%20-%20Ref%20No:%20200513%20JPG%20(117.5%20KB)[/url]
(Altimeters are lying bastards) :v:
I can not stress enough if anyone in this thread is a student pilot or current certified licence holder, please please [B]please do not rely solely on your instruments[/B]. A good look-out is crucial; not only for other traffic or hazards but knowing a rough attitude for safe and level flight on your most common aircraft type could be the difference between life and death.
On topic for the thread though, I don't believe a common stall/spin entry was at fault for this incident. The aircraft had an unusual angle of attack and attitude before departure of normal flight yes, but if you look very closely you can see after the initial entry - where the aircraft departs from normal flight, yaws violently right, flips and becomes inverted, it does not continue to spin. The aircraft actually restores its flight envelope, whether by the correct input by flight crew or just design of the aerofoil (the latter imho). If a spin was at fault, the aircraft would have continued to spin past this point I feel. As the video shows it did not, and just went into a flat dive. After the initial entry and recovery, the aircraft should have had enough airspeed to be recovered. The fact it was not recovered points to several things. But genuinely, I feel having watched this, a recovery to normal flight could have been made. (obviously we don't know if system fault was at play here, but say it was a serviceable aircraft with healthy aircrew, I think it could have been averted..)
Then again, I'm not sure how stable Chinese aircraft manufacture really is.. :rolleyes:
All of Facepunch are Jet Pilots.
A Chinese man flew into a stall...
[QUOTE=yawmwen;32789134]I thought they taught you about stalls like, your first flight lesson. Stalling is probably the single most important thing to avoid next to running into something.[/QUOTE]
they teach you about that before you even get in the aircraft
[QUOTE=runtime;32802448]What about a stall that is well inside the flight envelope of your aircraft; at an appropriate airspeed with a sensible attitude and rate of turn? I have had aircraft depart normal flight even when the instruments have told me it shouldn't. Infact, it can even be quite common. Unless you are an instrument rated CPL-and-higher pilot, instruments are very much a secondary source of information and should not be relied upon to provide primary flight data to the aircrew. The amount of incidents reported by the AAIB in the UK which have been the result of faulty instruments or pilots misinterpreting the readings is quite frightening. As a result, the amount of student pilots I have had to yell at for keeping their eyes in the cockpit and not looking outside must weigh in at least several dozen. As an old RAF aircrew poster says, "Heads in and not looking out, Can seriously damage your health."
[url]http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/LargeImageTemplate.aspx?img=GenerateThumbnail.aspx?imageURL=/NR/rdonlyres/24F52181-64AD-4093-BC2B-5EDD262D015F/0/heads_in_596x833.jpg&imgWidth=400&imgHeight=250&alt=Heads%20in%20and%20not%20looking%20out...%20...can%20seriously%20damage%20your%20health%20-%20Ref%20No:%20200513%20JPG%20(117.5%20KB)[/url]
(Altimeters are lying bastards) :v:
I can not stress enough if anyone in this thread is a student pilot or current certified licence holder, please please [B]please do not rely solely on your instruments[/B]. A good look-out is crucial; not only for other traffic or hazards but knowing a rough attitude for safe and level flight on your most common aircraft type could be the difference between life and death.
On topic for the thread though, I don't believe a common stall/spin entry was at fault for this incident. The aircraft had an unusual angle of attack and attitude before departure of normal flight yes, but if you look very closely you can see after the initial entry - where the aircraft departs from normal flight, yaws violently right, flips and becomes inverted, it does not continue to spin. The aircraft actually restores its flight envelope, whether by the correct input by flight crew or just design of the aerofoil (the latter imho). If a spin was at fault, the aircraft would have continued to spin past this point I feel. As the video shows it did not, and just went into a flat dive. After the initial entry and recovery, the aircraft should have had enough airspeed to be recovered. The fact it was not recovered points to several things. But genuinely, I feel having watched this, a recovery to normal flight could have been made. (obviously we don't know if system fault was at play here, but say it was a serviceable aircraft with healthy aircrew, I think it could have been averted..)
Then again, I'm not sure how stable Chinese aircraft manufacture really is.. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
The Chinese have very competently produced equipment.
It is quite possible the pilot had a medical complication while in flight, but what also isn't brought into consideration is that many times during a demonstration training and combat altitude aren't being observed and speeds are reduced as to not damaged the spectators hearing, altitude is reduced to observe other air traffic, the given flight pattern is outside a military pilots common practice, ect...
better them then us
What I find most interesting is that only one crew member ejected.
Western planes are designed so that if one person pulls the ripcord, then both crew members are ejected.
Possibly a malfunction or a rather severe design flaw.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
