Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Military aircraft with weird limitations

I have just read that the Eurofighter Typhoon needs power to cool down its brakes, so if it lands somewhere where there is no special ground power available, it needs to run its engines for 20 mins. If it doesn’t have enough fuel for that, the brakes might catch fire, which is a “problem” especially if carrying weapons.

The obvious Q is: who designed this piece of junk?

Can you imagine this plane being used in some actual war situation, near the front line – as opposed to its usual role of intercepting airliners which have mis-set a frequency and flown out of range of the last frequency?

I find it hard to believe the F16 has such a crazy limitation – being landable on most Greek islands.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I read somewhere years ago that this aircraft was so full of compromises and individual countries vested interests in their own manufacturing and requirements that it was a surprise that it flew at all. Which country designed and manufactured the brakes I wonder!

UK, United Kingdom

The obvious Q is: who designed this piece of junk?

Meggitt plc.

T28
Switzerland

According to this they are doing something after 2020. Maybe before too. Reading between the lines there are some interesting issues…

However clearly Meggitt didn’t design the Eurofighter. Somebody higher up must have accepted this operating limitation.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

who designed this piece of junk?

Nicely in line with ALL government procurement. If you wish anything, and I mean anything that will end up not fit for purpose, give it to a Government procurement process.

Not long ago, after allegedly billions (this being the new default number whether it be the purchase of a laptop to a 2 mile span suspension bridge) they broke up and destroyed the Nimrod fleet. 3.4 billion allegedly……

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9072073/Nimrod-destruction-cost-taxpayer-3.4bn-as-MoD-ignored-cost-implications-MPs-say.html

We keep saying it but you struggle to make this up…

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 19 Aug 11:30
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

« A camel is a horse designed by a committee » US joke

« A Eurofighter is a Rafale designed by a european committee » my opinion reading this thread

All defense projects lead by more than 2 countries are complete screwups. Too much compromises from different needs and thought processes, optimistic budgets, spec changes, scattered leadership etc….

At the end of the day, the customer must accept what he is given or put even more money if he wants better.

Last Edited by Jujupilote at 19 Aug 12:04
LFOU, France

Here is a funny limitation: most military aircraft capable of Mach 2 can’t slowdown on supersonic descents, the airflow is too wild and the engines will protect themselves by getting stuck on full power (no afterburner), so they will not roll down unless you slow it down by pulling the stick and obviously you can’t deploy airbraks at 500kts, the result is a sonic boom when they level off at low altitude and everybody will hear/read about it and complain about it

That was a valid reason to set 7700 when dealing with civvy ATC who actively controls flight paths not that any life was in danger just cleaning some noise complaints when Mirage 2000 does the lap of Grenoble

I am sure the Typhoons would have few CAS bust issues without 7700

Last Edited by Ibra at 19 Aug 12:17
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Slightly of topic, but I believe the Panavia Tornado (the IDS version in particular) turned out pretty well, despite a number of countries being involved in its conception. Never flown one tho…

EHTE, Netherlands

Continuing the Eurofighter theme: the Ministry of Defence decided to save money by removing the machine gun from the nose. Except this affected the aerodynamics and mass and balance, so it had to be replaced by lead/concrete ballast of exactly the same shape and weight as a machine gun. This turned out to be more expensive than buying the gun, so it was reinstated at a higher cost than originally budgeted, but doesn’t carry any ammunition. Daily Telegraph

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

If it doesn’t have enough fuel for that, the brakes might catch fire, which is a “problem” especially if carrying weapons.

Are you sure this is not an urban legend?

Yes, the Eurofighter has brake fans (like some Airbuses) but for two reasons I can’t really imagine that the plane catches fire if the fan can’t be operated:
1.) Air is quite a bad coolant at typical brake disc temperatures. It would be very unusual that a realistic airstream of such a fan could cool down the brakes enough to make the difference between fire and no fire
2.) That would imply that the brake fan is one of the most critical safety items of that plane – and never heard of a Eurofighter catching fire due to a failure of the brake fan motor…

Overall it seems much more realistic that the fan is there to reduce cycle times especially after rejected takeoffs and short field landings but not required to prevent fires – just as the Airbus brake fans …

Germany
25 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top