|
Godholio posted:Did he report the nature of the problem? I'm also curious what altitude he was flying at that this unfolded so quickly. The wing commander mentioned it was odd because they usually operate much higher than whatever he was at. No. He just said emergency and then didn't answer. He was in the very high flight levels and from level flight to lost radar contact took less than 24 seconds
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
kmcormick9 posted:No. He just said emergency and then didn't answer. He was in the very high flight levels and from level flight to lost radar contact took less than 24 seconds I'll just add that going off of the top of my head I want to say that the Mass ANG has some of the oldest F-15Cs in the fleet (which is like being the oldest person in a nursing home)...so yeah, I'm going with some sort of structural failure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I'll just add that going off of the top of my head I want to say that the Mass ANG has some of the oldest F-15Cs in the fleet (which is like being the oldest person in a nursing home)...so yeah, I'm going with some sort of structural failure. Weren't the Cs the ones where the wings fall off or something at high flight cycles? I seem to remember a grounding. edit: Yep. Bad stringers caused the fuselage of an ANG F-15C forward of the air intakes to fall off in flight in 2007. All aircraft were inspected, repaired, and subsequently released for flight in 2008. So, say the nose falls off. Is there enough battery and wiring left to declare an emergency? I don't know where the radios are located in an F-15.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:So, say the nose falls off. Is there enough battery and wiring left to declare an emergency? I don't know where the radios are located in an F-15. Now you do.  Click through for readable size. It's a Mudhen, but they're mostly the same except for the CFTs and second seat. Edit: Oops, forgot to do the linked one. And here's the fighter version:  Both clickable now. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Aug 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:25
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
"Forward of the intakes" includes the cockpit, so I'm going to go with "... no." Also, there's no click through?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Looks like #9 is the air radio. ARC-164? Google says ARC-190(V). Whichever. It looked like the front of an Air Radio to me. So depending on how much residual energy is sitting around, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
That was my gut reaction as well. Edit: There probably would've been some indication of the problem before the airframe gave out. Whether he had time to identify the issue or not is another story. If the cockpit section falls off, its gonna tumble like loving mad and he'll be unconconscious or riding the ejection seat before he has time for a radio call. Edit2: ARC-190 is an HF radio, 164 is a UHF. I've never heard of an F-15 actually using HF, if they're even still carried. Hell, even on AWACS we almost never used it. Godholio fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:01
|
|
says it was a structural issue of some sort.
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:Weren't the Cs the ones where the wings fall off or something at high flight cycles? I seem to remember a grounding. If the cockpit falls off I'm not sticking around to make an emergency call, I'm punching the gently caress out (assuming I'm still conscious...which is unlikely. The guy in the MO ANG incident is lucky he got out.) Now, if it's a slightly more progressive/less catastrophic structural failure (say, a vertical or horizontal stab letting go), I could see making an emergency call while trying to see if it's controllable before punching if it turns out it's uncontrollable. Also F-15Cs aren't the only legacy fighters to have structural issues...the A-10s go re-winged recently (just in time to be retired!) and the F-16s are starting to go through a SLEP to provide among other things structural reinforcement (no money for the avionics focused CAPES upgrade program unfortunately). A bunch of F-16D's were grounded the other day after an immediate action TCTO dropped in response to some longeron cracks. The fleet's old and getting older. About the only legacy fighter that isn't having problems is the Mud Hen, partially because those are, generally speaking, newer airframes, and partially because they were built like tanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
edit: ^^^ yeah, SLEP'ed to 2040 on the new wing sets; gets retired because... because....  This goes out to all A-10's around the world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSz16ngdsG0I thought they got all the broke-neck 15's sorted out a couple years back??  Has there been any follow up on this since yesterday, btw? I mean, I'm pretty sure I know how this story ends for him but I'm still curious.
Duke Chin fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Now, if it's a slightly more progressive/less catastrophic structural failure (say, a vertical or horizontal stab letting go) Or a wing, as the IDF have shown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:edit: ^^^ yeah, SLEP'ed to 2040 on the new wing sets; gets retired because... because.... Because Congress is logic challenged, is why. See also, may not be retired (instead we're just going to completely break the back of the tacair fleet and/or the refueling fleet) because Congress is logic challenged and refuses to accept the consequences of their actions. Duke Chin posted:I thought they got all the broke-neck 15's sorted out a couple years back?? Plenty of other areas that could fail structurally that would still result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft. ASIP is robust but when you're flying an airframe pushing 30 years old that has spent its entire life pulling 9 G's there's only so much that it's going to catch. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 02:48 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:ASIP is robust but when you're flying an airframe pushing 30 years old that has spent its entire life pulling 9 G's there's only so much that it's going to catch.  like the "old lady only drove it to church" vs. "fleet 1-ton pickup" in a car ad. Fighters, like work trucks, are rode hard and put away wet, and occasionally do this:Makes me a little worried about the F/A-18C pilot I met, flying a pre-Boeing airframe. He said it had 3 times the hours it was designed for on it. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Aug 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
The pilot in that F-15 mishap has been confirmed as having been killed in the mishap, supposedly he didn't punch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Plenty of other areas that could fail structurally that would still result in catastrophic loss of the aircraft. iyaayas01 posted:The pilot in that F-15 mishap has been confirmed as having been killed in the mishap, supposedly he didn't punch. Bummer. Wonder what he was up to before whatever happened happened...?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
I hate hearing of about stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:The pilot in that F-15 mishap has been confirmed as having been killed in the mishap, supposedly he didn't punch. I was hoping he was running around evading Limnadians and trying to make calls on his radio/cell phone, but goddamnit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Bummer. Taking it on a ferry flight to New Orleans for upgrades...I've heard reference made to radar upgrades, so NOLA might be where the ANG chose to centralize the effort to upgrade their radars to the V3.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Taking it on a ferry flight to New Orleans for upgrades...I've heard reference made to radar upgrades, so NOLA might be where the ANG chose to centralize the effort to upgrade their radars to the V3. Godholio posted:I was hoping he was running around evading Limnadians and trying to make calls on his radio/cell phone, but goddamnit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
He shouldn't have been doing ANYTHING, since he'd have been under ATC control on an air route. That's why I was asking about his altitude earlier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
dissss posted:The outside rows on the lower deck towards the back of an A380 have zero legroom because the cabin fuselage curves inwards right where your legs need to go. I wouldn't recommend sitting there, its much worse than anywhere on a 777 or similar. There's an exit row seat on the A320 (or is it 30?...) which is similarly bad. Stupid inflatable slides.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Babby's first turboprop flight.  ATR 72-600
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
The only competitor of the OV-10 Bronco to reach flying prototype status, the Convair Charger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3liOIGmUvQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Madurai posted:The only competitor of the OV-10 Bronco to reach flying prototype status, the Convair Charger: So apparently the USAF/Navy were fans of Ford at the time, not Mopar. Was there a "Jimmy" proposal? Also, 90 degree landing flaps and slats. That thing must have the stall speed of a gnat when fully deployed. I wonder if they could've used them like dive bombing airbrakes, like the SBD Dauntless. Also, spoilerons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 13:04
|
|
|
Jesus that wing is ugly. Also, I'm pretty sure that was Magneto that climbed into the cockpit at 7:39
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 14:12
|
|
|
Duke Chin posted:Jesus that wing is ugly. Also, I'm pretty sure that was Magneto that climbed into the cockpit at 7:39 Ugly by design! Lockheed's CL760 only made it to the mockup stage, and never got a cool car-based name from their marketing department:  Nothing else left the various drawing boards. Beechcraft:  Grumman, who proposed a tandem-seat version of the OV-1:  Goodyear, who got around the removable-pontoon requirement by building a flying boat:  Douglas:  and Martin:  Together for comparison:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Those wings are all so short! Was one of the requirements that the plane fit in a two-car garage?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Some of those start to look a bit like the Argentinian FMA Pucara, interesting. That upside-down V-tail on the Martin is pretty wild.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Those wings are all so short! Was one of the requirements that the plane fit in a two-car garage? Probably the back of a C-5 Galaxie  But, no, small, light weight aircraft built to be operated from forward airbases and posts like the "side of a mountain" type deals, pretty much like a bush plane (bush fighter/brush fighter). It needs to be able to get into an air fields tighter than a
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
DeHavilland should have stuck some rocket pods on a Beaver.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Probably the back of a C-5 Galaxie Speaking of bush pilots and short takeoffs... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWTcCtYl5Cs
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
To be perfectly fair, those planes will take off by accident in a stiff breeze.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Those wings are all so short! Was one of the requirements that the plane fit in a two-car garage? Close! The LARA specification required takeoffs from a two-lane road. The Bronco went over that limit, but won the competition anyway.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
ehnus posted:Those wings are all so short! Was one of the requirements that the plane fit in a two-car garage? According to the wikipedia entry for the OV-10 one of the requirements was that the aircraft could be broken down into components and packed into the back of a truck along with a toolkit so it could be transported somewhere and reassembled. Although the mind reels at what scenario they envisioned where you could reach an airfield (or long enough open space for takeoff) with a truck but for some reason not fly the aircraft there in the first place, unless they were intending to basically kamikaze the pilot by taking off from a strip that could not support a later landing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Geoj posted:According to the wikipedia entry for the OV-10 one of the requirements was that the aircraft could be broken down into components and packed into the back of a truck along with a toolkit so it could be transported somewhere and reassembled. Although the mind reels at what scenario they envisioned where you could reach an airfield (or long enough open space for takeoff) with a truck but for some reason not fly the aircraft there in the first place, unless they were intending to basically kamikaze the pilot by taking off from a strip that could not support a later landing. Few air defense systems out there could identify or engage the broken down components of the plane as it was moved across the FLOT by truck. They were redefining air warfare with that brilliant move.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Few air defense systems out there could identify or engage the broken down components of the plane as it was moved across the FLOT by truck. They were redefining air warfare with that brilliant move. This. Easier to sneak your forward deployed COIN birds into Cambodia and Laos by truck than by flying them and letting the VC know where your secret fields are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Saw this on the Aviation sub-reddit today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4D6GxkPMgs I'm assuming that the seawater mixed with the massive amount of poo poo that was expelled out of the pilots and co-pilots anus's left a pretty nasty smell in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
McDeth posted:Saw this on the Aviation sub-reddit today. At the very least it would be uncomfortable for the rest of the flight with all those bricks in your pants. That reminds me of one time when we're sitting on deck, #2 for the catapult behind a Hornet, when one of our pilots says, very casually, "wow, that jerk just shot them [the hornet] into the water". Now, in the back of an E-2 we have zero forward visibility; we rely on the pilots to keep up a running commentary as we're taxiing around the flight deck to know where we are and what's happening. So it got very, very quiet for a second before he thinks about his phrasing, and clarifies that the shooter had launched the hornet when the bow was pitched down - our pilot, being a former shooter, considered this bad technique. Yeah, thanks for the small heart attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:This. Easier to sneak your forward deployed COIN birds into Cambodia and Laos by truck than by flying them and letting the VC know where your secret fields are. Wouldn't this still result in a one-way flight though? If their tracking is that good wouldn't your secret airfield be compromised the instant the aircraft takes off or lands?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:To be perfectly fair, those planes will take off by accident in a stiff breeze. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WmjWAGkLI
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:01 |
|
|
Geoj posted:Wouldn't this still result in a one-way flight though? If their tracking is that good wouldn't your secret airfield be compromised the instant the aircraft takes off or lands? Not unless the insurgents you're countering have nationwide radar coverage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2014 21:15
|
|