How does the AC/ECS even get to -30? Is that a feature and if so for what purpose?

Is the reverse true-a ECS malfunction that turns the heat up to 150 or more?

Serious questions.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
How does the AC/ECS even get to -30? Is that a feature and if so for what purpose?

Is the reverse true-a ECS malfunction that turns the heat up to 150 or more?

Serious questions.

Those aren't selectable settings.

However, with the extreme temps of the bleed air used to power it, obviously through malfunctions its attainable for that air to enter the cockpit area.

I have heard of extreme heat malfunctions before but it was rectified by turning the ECS off. Personally I never experienced it in oh 1500-ish hours in F-18s (mostly Fs, but some B/D). The old Turkey ECS would start surging when you got up high, but I never had any substantial problems in that either

I'm guessing that the crew tried to turn the ECS off in this case, but that didn't work to stem the flow of uber cold air and mist.

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
How does the AC/ECS even get to -30? Is that a feature and if so for what purpose?

Is the reverse true-a ECS malfunction that turns the heat up to 150 or more?

Serious questions.

I have a buddy who ejected from an F16 because the heater malfunctioned and the temp inside the cockpit was too hot. It got up to 160 and he couldn’t fly it home. Weird shit happens.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
How does the AC/ECS even get to -30? Is that a feature and if so for what purpose?

Is the reverse true-a ECS malfunction that turns the heat up to 150 or more?

Serious questions.

I have a buddy who ejected from an F16 because the heater malfunctioned and the temp inside the cockpit was too hot. It got up to 160 and he couldn’t fly it home. Weird shit happens.

Good reason to unass a sixteen million dollar jet...discomfort.

Good thing he didn't choose crop dusting, where it can get those temperatures and stay that way in the summer without air conditioning...all the time.

Imagine sitting in a car with more glass than cover on a hot summer day in phoenix at noon, with the windows rolled up...and that's about what it's like, except that you don't get to give it back to the taxpayers...because it's normal, not an emergency. At least he had a mask and something to breathe.

Can you eject the canopy only, without doing a complete ejection of the seat too ?

quote:

Originally posted by nighthawk:
Can you eject the canopy only, without doing a complete ejection of the seat too ?

In the F-18 and F-14, yes. Canopy Jettison handle accessible to either crew member.

quote:

Originally posted by sns3guppy:

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

quote:

Originally posted by OcCurt:
How does the AC/ECS even get to -30? Is that a feature and if so for what purpose?

Is the reverse true-a ECS malfunction that turns the heat up to 150 or more?

Serious questions.

I have a buddy who ejected from an F16 because the heater malfunctioned and the temp inside the cockpit was too hot. It got up to 160 and he couldn’t fly it home. Weird shit happens.

Good reason to unass a sixteen million dollar jet...discomfort.

Good thing he didn't choose crop dusting, where it can get those temperatures and stay that way in the summer without air conditioning...all the time.

Imagine sitting in a car with more glass than cover on a hot summer day in phoenix at noon, with the windows rolled up...and that's about what it's like, except that you don't get to give it back to the taxpayers...because it's normal, not an emergency. At least he had a mask and something to breathe.

Chuck Yeager strikes again. How much fighter time you got, Chuckie boy?

quote:

Chuck Yeager strikes again. How much fighter time you got, Chuckie boy?

I was going to stay out of this, but now you've got me curious as to where he is wrong. How did B-17 and B-24 crews fly over Germany without even pressurization? How did pilots fly in the Pacific where it's hot and humid? I have read of P-38 pilots stripping down to T-shirts and shorts to fly because it was so hot.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Chuck Yeager strikes again. How much fighter time you got, Chuckie boy?

I was going to stay out of this, but now you've got me curious as to where he is wrong. How did B-17 and B-24 crews fly over Germany without even pressurization? How did pilots fly in the Pacific where it's hot and humid? I have read of P-38 pilots stripping down to T-shirts and shorts to fly because it was so hot.

I think that, over Germany, bomber air crews wore suits with electric heat, power cord plugged into the aircraft power supply. It's my understanding that a crew member could die very quickly if his suit heater failed, he'd freeze to death very quickly.

My Uncle (whom I never met due to me being born way after WW2) was a bomber crew member based in England and bombing Germany. He was on his VERY LAST MISSION before being sent back home when his aircraft collided with another while over the ocean. Bomber crews usually never lived past 25 missions, that's why anyone surviving 25 mission was sent back home.

As to your other question, I think they were on oxygen while at altitude.

Equipment failure, such as a heated suit failing or oxygen system failing, was usually fatal because the bombers were normally in HUGE groups, tightly packed together for self defense against German fighters, and as such just simply most likely could not veer around and dive to a lower altitude.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

Chuck Yeager strikes again. How much fighter time you got, Chuckie boy?

I was going to stay out of this, but now you've got me curious as to where he is wrong. How did B-17 and B-24 crews fly over Germany without even pressurization? How did pilots fly in the Pacific where it's hot and humid? I have read of P-38 pilots stripping down to T-shirts and shorts to fly because it was so hot.

I don’t dispute that the events you mention occur, because in fact they did.

I just criticize his attempt to dismiss every possible aviation hazard presented.

Sure, you can fly a crop duster when it’s hot as hell in a plane you can open the window on to get some breeze. Sure, you can fly in the cold over Nazi Germany when you are bundled up like it’s the North Pole. Sure, you can fly in shorts and t-shirt over the pacific for all the same reasons - it’s expected and you have time to prepare for it.

In confined miliary fighter aircraft, you typically only wear a thin nomex flight suit with a t-shirt underneath, except when you may be flying in very cold locations, when you might add a dry suit (very uncomfortable) underneath. Lots of flight crew don’t always wear gloves either to have better feel of the controls - personally I brought them, but only wore them for takeoff / landing.

So can you fly an F-18 in -30 temps? Sure, but imagine being strapped into a seat in a walk in freezer with only a flight suit on. You can’t get up or move around to increase circulation and you have to manipulate controls to land the plane - or you (1) crash or (2) have to eject. Maybe you forgot your gloves and more than likely you neck is semi exposed as well.

Now turn up the heat to 150F, if you have ever felt that. Take your wife’s hair dryer, turn it on hot and hold it a 12-18” away from your face. That’s only about 130 degrees. Same thing, you can’t move out your seat, you have to do tasks to survive / fly the plane, and you can’t just conveniently land your crop duster in the nearest field or open the window to get a breeze.

It’s apples and oranges sometimes, things don’t necessarily translate from one to the other. Especially in uncommon emergency situations.

Man that quick of a drop...I wonder if the LOX system somehow malfunctioned into the cockpit.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Man that quick of a drop...I wonder if the LOX system somehow malfunctioned into the cockpit.

Most of the new planes use an Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) instead of LOX bottles for primary O2. All the Super Hornet / Growlers do and most (if not all) of the legacy Navy F-18s as well.

Ah gotcha

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Man that quick of a drop...I wonder if the LOX system somehow malfunctioned into the cockpit.

Most of the new planes use an Onboard Oxygen Generation System (OBOGS) instead of LOX bottles for primary O2. All the Super Hornet / Growlers do and most (if not all) of the legacy Navy F-18s as well.

Many of those are made right here in Davenport IA by Cobham (used to be Carlton). Not sure if they make them for the F/A-18s.

http://www.cobham.com/mission-...pace-oxygen-systems/

quote:

Originally posted by Sigmund:
Many of those are made right here in Davenport IA by Cobham (used to be Carlton). Not sure if they make them for the F/A-18s.

http://www.cobham.com/mission-...pace-oxygen-systems/

No. Honeywell makes the OBOGS for F-18.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Sure, you can fly a crop duster when it’s hot as hell in a plane you can open the window on to get some breeze.

No, you really can't. Point is, 160 in the cockpit isn't that unusual, even for those flying that ag airplane into a raging forest fire in nomex, helmet and gear...and no, the windows don't open.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
How did B-17 and B-24 crews fly over Germany without even pressurization?

I didn't fly one over Germany, but I am typed in a Navy B-24 variant and spent several years flying it. Neither the B17 nor the B24 were pressurized, of course, and didn't fly very high. They flew in cold environments and hot, and while crews did have electric flying suits, it was bitter cold in those aircraft, and they were drafty in cold climates. When hot, they got extremely hot inside (and yes, we did wear nomex, boots, gloves and gear in them).

https://www.airforcetimes.com/...fly-again-next-week/

Air Force’s grounded T-6 trainers could fly again next week

By: Stephen Losey  

The Air Force’s T-6 trainer — which was grounded at the beginning of February after a rash of hypoxia incidents — could resume flights as early as Monday.

Lt. Gen. Steven Kwast, head of Air Education and Training Command, said during a roundtable with reporters Thursday at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium that they could return to flying status, with restrictions, next week if everything goes according to plan.

Kwast’s comments were first reported by Aviation Week and confirmed by AETC.

AETC spokesman Master Sgt. Joshua Strang said in an email that more tests need to be done on the trainers before they can make a final decision on whether to fly them again.

The 19th Air Force’s fleet of T-6 Texans were grounded Feb. 1 after 13 instances of hypoxia or other unexplained symptoms in a single week in January. Of those, 10 occurred at Columbus Air Force Base in Mississippi, two occurred at Vance Air Force Base in Oklahoma, and one happened at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas.

Vance also suspended its T-6 flights for nearly three weeks last November and December after a handful of hypoxia or hypoxia-like events. But investigators couldn't pin down the cause of the problem, and resumed flights Dec. 5.

Grounding the entire T-6 fleet — which 19th Air Force commander Maj. Gen. Patrick Doherty called “our primary workhorse” for training new pilots — costs the Air Force 700 sorties a day. This is particularly a problem now, since the Air Force is trying to train more new pilots as part of an effort to solve an alarming pilot shortfall across the service.

In Thursday’s roundtable, according to a transcript provided by AETC, Kwast said investigators are finding that some pieces of the onboard oxygen generation system, or OBOGS, might need to be maintained or replaced more frequently.

Kwast also said that pilots could resume flights in the T-6, as long as they can turn off the OBOGS system and breathe cockpit air. Air Force and NASA experts have been measuring ambient air in T-6 cockpits and found that it’s clean and breathable, he said.

Resuming flights, as long as pilots can breathe ambient air, will give scientists and engineers more time to find the root causes of the problem, Kwast said.

“We don't know yet” what is really causing the problem, Kwast said. “We have indicators, but to jump to that conclusion would be to not allow the scientists and engineers the time to really test things properly. But we have gone in and we have done some testing on certain components, and we’ve found some of them that are failing more often than they should, and that’s an indication that there are some issues there.”

Kwast also said the Air Force has noticed some shutoff valve failures, and other issues with the plenum, or reservoir, of the oxygen system.

The Air Force is also consulting with the Navy to find out what they've learned from their own hypoxia problems.

But Doherty said the Air Force isn't going to do anything that puts its instructor pilots and students at risk.

“The priority of our people and our air crews [is to] make sure they have a safe flying environment,” Doherty said. “Thats what’s driving it. We’re not worried about timelines. We’re not worried about a logjam of pilot candidates that are stacking up. We’re worried about taking care of our primary number one weapon system, [which] is our people.”

https://www.defensenews.com/na...Early%20Bird%20Brief

Aircrew that landed a Growler while blind and freezing awarded for bravery

By: David B. Larter   22 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The two-man aircrew that battled frostbite to safely land an EA-18G Growler blind after a catastrophic failure of the cockpit oxygen and climate control system has been officially recognized for exceptional airmanship.

The U.S. Navy’s top aviator, Vice Adm. DeWolfe Miller III, awarded Air Medals to Lt. Jason Hirzel and Lt. Sean Noronha, an award given for aircrew who “distinguish themselves by heroic or meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight,” according to the instruction.

Miller’s spokesman said Hirzel and Noronha, both assigned to the elite Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine, went well beyond the call of duty to land the stricken Growler.

“This is a situation that absolutely would have justified ejection from the aircraft,” Flanders said. “But the aircrew persevered through the extreme conditions and risked their lives to ensure a safe recovery of the aircraft.”

Noronha and Hirzel were cruising at 25,000 feet on Jan. 29 — about 60 miles south of Seattle on a flight from Washington state’s Naval Air Station Whidbey Island to Naval Weapons Station China Lake — when the Growler’s environmental control system issued an icing warning, then failed completely.

The temperature in the cockpit plummeted to minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit, and the system began filling the cabin with a mist that covered everything, including instruments, with a sheet of ice. Without so much as a window to see out of or instruments to guide them, the crew used a Garmin watch to track their heading and altitude while a tremendous effort from Whidbey Island’s ground control team guided the Growler safely back.

The maneuver was something close to driving fast through a busy part of town and parking the car while blindfolded, relying fully on a voice in your ear for each turn of the wheel.

Both pilots were rushed for medical treatment, having suffered from frostbite. One pilot has returned to flight status and the other is expected to make a full recovery and be up in the air again soon, Flanders said, but could not elaborate due to privacy protections.

The incident was a reminder of the Navy’s struggle with containing a recent rash of physiological episodes, many of which trace back to the environmental control system.

The service has made some progress in the physiological episodes fight, especially in the T-45 training jets. The rate of physiological episodes in the T-45 aircraft has dropped from about three a month at the peak in 2016 to about one a month since last September’s grounding.