mvsgas Posted March 12, 2008 Posted March 12, 2008 Like Bimbac, Groove and Nordic said, it has nothing to do where you are from and no matter how old or new the equipment, it will brake. If equipment did not brake I would not have a job. Here is my example, F-22 is suppose to be the baddest aircraft out there right? Here some maintenance issues I found on the net: Brand new aircraft right? Stuck canopy http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=20396 Brand new aircraft with, IMO, A very serious problem: http://www.f-16.net/news_article2210.html I'm just saying, it has nothing to do with where you are from. Some equipment, no matter how new will brake and aircraft tent to brake more than other equipment. I mean think about it. What other equipment or vehicles out there can travel hundreds of mile a day, at a average of 200 to 400 knots? Fighter aircraft brake: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/11/airforce_raptor_rust_071112w/ 2 To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
ED Team Groove Posted March 12, 2008 ED Team Posted March 12, 2008 Especially the last of mvsgas links is very interesting. Thanks! Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
RvETito Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Some interesting data I came across about polish F-16's- According to report of the Polish AF Chief Commander Gen. Blassik from 23.1.2008. Defects summary: - defects found during the recieving procedure- 281; - defects found during the line maintenance- 393; - defects found during flights- 343, including 4 that has been followed by mission abort and emergency landing; - total accumalated flight time of the fleet for 2007- 2480h; Assuming that we disregard the discrepancies found in the recieving procedure that makes 736 failures during 2480h service of the polish F-16's which gives 3h 22min per failure. That's extremely poor reliability! If we accept average time of 1h per flight that means that every sixth landing the plane returns with a failure and at every 2 flight days the ground crew founds a problem. True, according to the reliability theory the malfunctions' flow parameter has higher value in the beggining of the service then decreases and increases again at end of the service life but 3:22 hours is still a pathetic value which I fail to explain. For example the MiG-29's in Bulagrian AF are built 1988-1989, have been grounded for long periods (some up to 15 years) but the accumalated flight time per malfunction is about 3 times higher. 2 "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
mvsgas Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 AirTito, but what kind of defects where talking about here? Grounding item? Meaning their entire F-16 fleet was not able to fly? About the hours, how many sorties or missions flown? You may have more sorties that hours in some units due to training focus. I don't know, maybe my bird is not very reliable, but how many wester aircraft (F-4, F-117, F-15, F-14, Mirages, Tornado's, ect.) are as reliable as Russian built aircraft? Hell, are there any aircraft, from any other country that build their own, as reliable as Russian built aircraft? To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
RvETito Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I read also few years ago a report of the USAF about reliability- the F-15 had about 13-15 hours per defect (30-50% more than the MiG for example) while the F-16 still rates twice less. The statistics are given in general- defects that require maintenance (a period during which the plane is not serviceable). "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
mvsgas Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 Well my point is, a light bulb replacement tell me the aircraft is not serviceable in peace time, but in war time, how many pilots turn the light on during combat? I can ground any jet I look at but, can they go to combat? Hell yes, because of of the stuff I can ground the aircraft about (most of the time) is just a peace time requirements. For example, if I where to remove my aircraft wing tanks, in peace time I have to put panels to cover those small areas where the tank connects to the wing, in combat that does not matter, the panels do not present a safety of flight issue and do not affect the aircraft in any way, but in peace time, I have reason why not to put them on, the aircraft does not have to take off right away to destroy some thing. P.S. FMC rates vary a lot from unit to unit. Not a very reliable source for general aircraft reliability. I have been station on bases that we can fly 60+ sorties (1 to 2 hours depending on training requirements) and others that we are lucky to fly 20 sorties. It depends heavily on the crews ( air crew o ground crew) experience and the equipment. To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..
RvETito Posted March 25, 2008 Posted March 25, 2008 I understand your point but this is still a very low number, regardless the nature of the defect. Except for the maintenance quality it depends also (even at higher degree) of the manufacturing. I'm not questioning how the planes have been built in Fort Worth since I have no data about that but for instance I've read that in the Turkish AF the F-16 is the most reliable plane and they are making them on their own. Also a Murted produced F-16 is second in a row wordlwide for dimension (assembly) precision. It's certainly pretty complicated subject but in any case the numbers say a lot. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
ED Team Groove Posted March 25, 2008 ED Team Posted March 25, 2008 I have a rather detailed document about F-16s failures ( A,B,C - Failures ) but unfortunately for most of you its in Polish language. Many detailed reports about polish F-16s in here ( polish ): http://www.eskadra.net/d-biblioteka.htm Our Forum Rules: http://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en
Recommended Posts