F15 Flying With One Wing - WOW!!!!!!

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:12 AM, Mustank said:

the other poor guy died

 

these guys are just plain HIONG!!!!

 

No leh, the Skyhawk pilot managed to eject and landed safely.

 

He would not be pleased then that was for sure...

[The_Bear]

damm!! we got ripped off again. Sold us 2 wings when 1 could do the job...

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:16 AM, B777jubilee said:

its due to the design of the plane. its a twin engine with engine on the side of the fuselage rather than the wings like in a commercial jet.

 

When the wing is gone, the way to fly the plane is to use thrust differential by powering up the engine on the wingless side and lower the thrust of engine on the wing side. this will counter the loss of lift. Also the wing surface of the f15 is huge thus allowing tis to happen. in addition, the altitude has to be lowered as the engine is running on less power.

 

but all being said, it still take a superb pilot to bring this plane down safely.

 

You must be a airliner pilot judging from your nick

 

Ex-military?

 

You are spot on. The MD team that came down to investigate attributed that bec the fighter jock max out the engine and made the damaged brid flew more like a rocket coupled with a wide fuselage thus making the plane still flyable.

 

Still got a lot of praise for the skill of this Israeli pilot

Edited August 17, 2011 by Vulcann

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:28 AM, Bavarian said:

damm!! we got ripped off again. Sold us 2 wings when 1 could do the job...

 

Going by your logic, we should opt out the M61 Vulcan 20mm Gatling gun and issue the flyboys with our very own SAR21s or AGLs lah- save a lot of $$$$!!

 

[Mustank]

wah! heng man that guy!!!!!

 

i thot the airplane fireball means that guy go report liao

[Happily1986]

i do have some questions that are relevant:

 

1.) Why is he cleared to land? never mind that the pilot or air control is unaware that he had only one wing left. He was on an air interception training sortie so he must have been carrying a full complement of AAMs

 

2.) Not sure how much fuel he had left. Bot familiar with the fuel tank layout in F 15s. 15 mile flight to air base is only about 2 to 3 mins flight time. he was losing fuel via the severed section but surely proper procedure is to dump fuel before landing?

[Mockngbrd]

Pilot is super badass...

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:17 AM, Happily1986 said:

after i gave some thought about it, i concluded that the plane managed to stay airborne out of speed. that the pilot chose to engage the afterburner meant that he wanted to maximize whatever lift he xould squeeze out.

 

i would like to point out that the incredibility of this extraordinary encounter shouldn't be pinned on the plane's ability to remain aloft.

 

rather, the amazing thing is how the pilot managed to pull the one winged plane out of a super barrel roll no less. With one wing less, i am sure roll control is hard as hell. perhaps it was a good idea to have had twin tail fins. Skills at the cockpit is undoubtedly there too.

 

having said that, i suppose any stress on the airframe during flight would have been due to sonic booms and friction due to speed of flight. since the pilot didn't engage in >2G manoervre after that barrel roll and i doubt that he went more than subsonic, i don't there was any major stress subjected to the airframe after ripoff.

 

It was reported that he went afterburner after that so likely to go beyond mach 1 and subjected the airframe under trememdous stress.

 

I think the lucky thing was that his two P&W engines were undamaged and he was able to squeeze the max peformance out of them. If either of them was down then the plane would not be able to stay level and a complete write-off i.e. an expensive 1206

 

I would say his b*lls were made of the same material of that US airliner pilot who landed his plane after a birdstrike on the Hudson River...

 

 

[The_Bear]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:40 AM, Mockngbrd said:

Pilot is super badass...

 

IAF is Number One Badass.

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 1:39 AM, Happily1986 said:

i do have some questions that are relevant:

 

1.) Why is he cleared to land? never mind that the pilot or air control is unaware that he had only one wing left. He was on an air interception training sortie so he must have been carrying a full complement of AAMs

 

2.) Not sure how much fuel he had left. Bot familiar with the fuel tank layout in F 15s. 15 mile flight to air base is only about 2 to 3 mins flight time. he was losing fuel via the severed section but surely proper procedure is to dump fuel before landing?

 

Not a pilot nor in the AF but I think it was an emergency and thus he was able to land the strikened jet. Apparently he had a wingmen but during the documentary I did not recall the wingman nor his nav telling him about the situation.

 

Could not see clearly but from what I saw the eagle was only carrying a side-winder on the remaining left wing so likely the full complement would be just one under each wing. No external fuel tanks visible as it would be just a short training session.

 

From the way the highly volatile fuel was gazzling out, I woud say his internal tankswould be at bingo level and engines would have been sucking fumes by then so need no further bleeding anymore.

 

Actually it was a miracle the discharged fuel did not catch fire. Any sparks would have doomed the aircraft together with these 2 flyboys....

Edited August 17, 2011 by Vulcann

[1fast1]

The fighter might have been flying with only one wing, but I'll bet his guardian angel was flying with both!

[Mockngbrd]

he prob has this on his door now

 

[The_Bear]

  On 8/17/2011 at 2:15 AM, Mockngbrd said:

he prob has this on his door now

 

I've seen Beastiality but this is too much...

[1fast1]

Cannot see leh.

[Ea_falcon]

Actually, Singapore had a similar incident happen. 2 F16As (tail Nos 880 & 883) collided over the South China Sea during a dogfight training sortie in 1991.

Pilot of 883 ejected to safety, but the pilot of 880 flew and landed the aircraft, sans 1/3 of it's right wing.

It would not have been possible except for the fact that the flight control computer was able to help compensate for the instability introduced by the loss of 1/3 of right wing.

Same for the F15, I believe if it wasn't for the fact that the F15's flight surfaces are partly controlled by the flight control computer, I doubt the Israeli pilot would have been able to fly it back.

Edited August 17, 2011 by Ea_falcon

[Vulcann]

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:01 AM, Ea_falcon said:

Actually, Singapore had a similar incident happen. 2 F16As (tail Nos 880 & 883) collided over the South China Sea during a dogfight training sortie in 1991.

Pilot of 883 ejected to safety, but the pilot of 880 flew and landed the aircraft, sans 1/3 of it's right wing.

It would not have been possible except for the fact that the flight control computer was able to help compensate for the instability introduced by the loss of 1/3 of right wing.

Same for the F15, I believe if it wasn't for the fact that the F15's flight surfaces are partly controlled by the flight control computer, I doubt the Israeli pilot would have been able to fly it back.

 

Ya read abt it in the papers but IIRC not pictures shown leh.

 

Falcons are in comparison smaller in airframe and it's fuselage was sleek for better aeronautical performance. It must have been a harowing for our very own native son to fly the damaged bird back. And of course all AFs in the world would want their pilots to fly back their aircraft if possible given the steep price tags of these jets...

 

Amazing how the flight comps are able to manage the flight systems from avionics to weapons to fuel control and in this type of extreme situation, control a inherently unstable striken jet to at least make it flyable.

 

Not sure if older F15s were fly-by-wire but should have been configured and updated by now I guess.

 

Funny thing was that the IAF pilot was commenting that if he had known how bad a shape his plane was, he would have bailed out!

 

Guess ignorant is bliss...

Edited August 17, 2011 by Vulcann

[Ea_falcon]

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:17 AM, Vulcann said:

Ya read abt it in the papers but IIRC not pictures shown leh.

 

Falcons are in comparison smaller in airframe and it's fuselage was sleek for better aeronautical performance. It must have been a harowing for our very own native son to fly the damaged bird back. And of course all AFs in the world would want their pilots to fly back their aircraft if possible given the steep price tags of these jets...

 

Amazing how the flight comps are able to manage the flight systems from avionics to weapons to fuel control and in this type of extreme situation, control a inherently unstable striken jet to at least make it flyable.

 

Not sure if older F15s were fly-by-wire but should have been configured and updated by now I guess.

 

Funny thing was that the IAF pilot was commenting that he had known how bad a shape his plane was, he would have bailed out!

 

Guess ignorant is bliss...

 

Well, at that time the F16s were Sinagpore's top fighter jets. Alot of things about it was classified, so of course no pictures in the papers was allowed.

Think I did get to see a pic of the jet with 1/3 of it's wing gone whenI was in the airforce tho. IIRC the wing was sliced off pretty cleanly by the other jet's vertical stabiliser.

Actually, most AFs would rather their pilots ditch the jet and eject rather than try to fly the jet back in such a situation, reason being they would rather lose a jet which they can easily buy back than to lose a pilot, which is harder to find and takes years to train. Even in the case of 880, the pilot was explicitly ordered to ditch the jet and eject, but he refused.

 

[RadX]

  On 8/17/2011 at 3:41 AM, Ea_falcon said:

Well, at that time the F16s were Sinagpore's top fighter jets. Alot of things about it was classified, so of course no pictures in the papers was allowed.

Think I did get to see a pic of the jet with 1/3 of it's wing gone whenI was in the airforce tho. IIRC the wing was sliced off pretty cleanly by the other jet's vertical stabiliser.

Actually, most AFs would rather their pilots ditch the jet and eject rather than try to fly the jet back in such a situation, reason being they would rather lose a jet which they can easily buy back than to lose a pilot, which is harder to find and takes years to train. Even in the case of 880, the pilot was explicitly ordered to ditch the jet and eject, but he refused.

 

reminds me of our old fren who landed the A4 without undercarriage..... thae fellow relaly lau hero