FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1987
1987 - 0013.PDF
US Navy airship on hold again WASHINGTON D.C. ~ The US Navy has delayed yet again its decision on a winner of its airship low-level target surveillance programme. It now wants Goodyear and Airship Industries/Westing- house to respond to a series of technical questions concern ing their respective systems, and says the programme deci sion will be made in late April or early May, reports Julian Moxon. Press reports that the entire programme is in danger were described by the US Navy as "pure speculation". "The programme is intact," the Navy tells Flight. "We simply want amplification of a number of safety and technical matters. This programme started from scratch, and the Navy wants to be sure it has a complete understanding of the tech nical issues." The unofficial line, however, is that the Navy is planning to shelve the airship programme altogether after the departure of Navy Secretary John Lehman in the spring. Lehman strongly supports the use of airships for defending battle groups from cruise missile attack. But dollars are tight, and there are few uniformed proponents of airships to counter the power ful fixed-wing, lobby in the Navy. The Navy had originally planned to award the contract, said to be worth around $200 million, last October, for development of a proof-of-contract airship to prove the system works. The 48-month programme would be followed by a full com petition for production of up to 50 systems, in the 1990s. In its latest edict, the Navy asked contractors to respond to a series of technical ques tions by March 23, and to be ready to discuss the issues raised the following week. Flight understands that one of the areas raised is the type of material used in the envelope, because of its effect on radar signature, and weight. Both manufacturers use composite materials, and this is an area in which the Navy has had little experience. The industry teams remain outwardly confident that the programme will go ahead. "We still intend to win," says a Goodyear spokesman. "We have 200 people assigned to the programme, and we're pursuing the contract with all vigour." Westinghouse was unavailable for comment, but Airship Industries (which has just started dealing stocks on the New York market), also said it thought the programme was secure. Lockheed questions US Navy's ASW plans WASHINGTON D.C. ~ The US Navy's intentions for competitive procurement of an advanced anti-submarine aircraft to replace the P-3 Orion have led to criticism from its long time P-3 supplier, Lockheed, reports Julian Moxon. The request for proposals, due to be issued on May 1, will specify that derivatives of other transport aircraft as well as a heavier, longer range derivative of the P-3C, called the P-3G, will be considered. Lockheed wants to keep the P-3 production line open, to enable it tp meet possible contracts from overseas, esti mated by the company to be worth some $5 billion. The Navy plans to close the line after this year's buy, however, opening it again after a three- or four-year,gap if Lockheed wins the competition. It would cost about. $400 million more to re-open the line to manufacture 125 upgraded P-3s, says Lock heed, rather than keeping the line open, and introduce the improvements gradually. The president of Lockheed- California Richard Heppe estimated that unit cost of the P-3G (which is still largely undefined by the Navy) would be around $48 million. He claims this would still be at least $30 million less than the cost of modifying a transport aircraft, however. Lockheed is openly scep tical of the plan to include commercial transport aircraft derivatives in the RFP. The conversion would require major structural changes, including a bomb bay, military cockpit, and airframe improvements to enhance manoeuvrability. It notes that Congess did not accept the need for improvements to the P-3 airframe last year, although it was in favour of funding the Update IV pack age. Boeing and McDonnell Douglas are reportedly inter ested in responding to the RFP, Boeing with an airframe derived from the 757, McDon nell Douglas with an MD-80 derivative. These two com panies, along with Rockwell, were originally involved in the Navy's failed effort to com pete P-3C production. In February, the Navy persuaded Lockheed to turn over key technical data to pave the way for competitive procurement, but the three potential competitors concluded that they had little chance of matching Lockheed's price, given its production experi ence with the P-3. Pilot's parachute lines cut by seat RAF BINBROOK A Royal Air Force Lightning pilot was killed after he ejec ted and the parachute with drawal line was cut by the ejection seat's guillotine unit. The accident occurred on March 6, 1985, over the North Sea. Two British Aerospace Lightning F.6s from RAF Binbrook were engaged in air combat training some 20 n.m. north-east of Skegness. The sortie went as planned until the second engagement, when the one aircraft was seen to DEFENCE make a climbing left turn and then reverse this to a descending right turn. The Lightning levelled at about 11,000ft, still in a right-hand turn, but shortly afterwards it yawed positively to the left and started to spin. The pilot transmitted that he was spinning, and the pair's leader told him to check his height. He then trans mitted "I am going out." A bright flash was seen as he ejected; approximately lOsec later the aircraft hit the sea. The leader transmitted a Mayday on Guard and then went to low level, where he observed the pilot floating 50m from some aircraft debris and an oil slick. An SAR heli copter recovered the pilot 35min after ejection, but when examined in the helicopter he was found to be dead, with his parachute still in its pack. Although approximately 85 per cent of the aircraft, including the ejection seat, was salvaged, no conclusive reason could be established for the aircraft entering the spin. Although mishandling may have been the cause, the possibility of a struc tural failure or a malfunc tion in the flying control system could not be dis counted. An exhaustive specialist investigation was conducted to determine why the pilot died. Examination of the ejec tion seat, the salvaged cockpit area, and the pilot's flying equipment revealed that the ejection seat had operated correctly, except that the parachute withdrawal line had been cut by the guillotine mechanism before releasing the parachute. The guillotine unit, which is used to separate the pilot from the ejection seat if the auto matic sequence fails, normally only operates when the pilot is clear of the seat, or if he oper ates the manual separation lever. In this accident the reason for the unit's operation could not be positively deter mined, although the gyrations of the seat after ejection could have moved the parachute pack forward, away from its container, which would in turn have activated the guil lotine unit. As a result of the accident the ejection seat is being modified, and some changes have been made to the Light ning training syllabus. FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL, 4 April 1987 1
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
