http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html

> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html

It was military. This only proves that money is what makes an airplane
fly, not aerodynamics. :)

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04...
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html

This is a true story, but I think the bottom three photos in the left hand
column are photo-shopped. In those photos, the wing is cleanly sheared off,
where the other photos show a fairly large stub at the root near the leading
edge.

KB

The special about it on History channel (about 2 years ago) said that
at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until they sent their
engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself generates so
much lift it could still fly. If you think about the amount of G's
those planes can pull and the amount of load (bombs , etc) they can
carry they must have an enormous amount of excess lift.

-Robert


Jim Macklin wrote:
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html

On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:48:37 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote in
<2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04>:

> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>


Wings? We don't need no stinkin' wings!

Kyle Boatright wrote:

> "Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
> news:2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04...
>
>> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>
>
> This is a true story, but I think the bottom three photos in the left hand
> column are photo-shopped. In those photos, the wing is cleanly sheared off,
> where the other photos show a fairly large stub at the root near the leading
> edge.
>
> KB
>
>

And the angle of attack looks pretty high for a landing speed that is
twice normal. And I'd be surprised that he'd lower the flap on the
remaining wing during landing. And the starboard side of the tail
appears to be missing. And ...

Matt

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 16:48:37 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
> > wrote in
> <2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04>:
>
>
>> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>>
>
>
>
> Wings? We don't need no stinkin' wings!
>

They just add drag.

Matt

Jim Macklin wrote:
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>
>
I'm pretty opposed to jumping out of airplanes, but I think I would have
bailed out of that one.

> And the angle of attack looks pretty high for a landing speed that is
> twice normal. And I'd be surprised that he'd lower the flap on the
> remaining wing during landing. And the starboard side of the tail
> appears to be missing. And ...
>
> Matt

You're right about the angle of attack looking pretty high for a
landing speed
twice normal but that's only if he had two wings. It is certainly
reasonable to
have to have a high AOA and a much higher speed with a missing wing.
In
a F-111 with the wings stuck back at 72 degrees, our landing speed
would be
well over 200 knots with a very high AOA compared to a normal approach
and landing.

Jim Macklin wrote:
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
I was in a McDonnell -Douglas tech-rep's office at Langley AFB
when the message first came in. They figured it was an error in
translation that should have said "three feet of wing missing", not "
three feet remaining". The flight controls in the F-15 don't
necessarily move the way you expect when you move the stick. You move
the stick and rudders to tell the airplane what you want it to do and
the flight control computer sort of figures out where to move things.
Anything the F-15 has two of, you can fly with one of. I always
figured it was tougher than a B-17, or anything else.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> The special about it on History channel (about 2 years ago) said that
> at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until they sent their
> engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself generates so
> much lift it could still fly. If you think about the amount of G's
> those planes can pull and the amount of load (bombs , etc) they can
> carry they must have an enormous amount of excess lift.

One such Navy/Marine Corps airplane was the AD-1 Skyraider which, if memory
serves me, weighed less than the 3 tons of ordnance you could hang under its
wings.
Somewhere in the Naval Aviation archives resides a set of photos of an
AD-1 Skyraider on base and short final to the USS Bon Homme Richard ("Bonnie
Dick") with one wing folded over the cockpit. Contrary to engineering specs,
both locking pins inthe left wing sheared when the pilot pulled the airplane
off the deck during takeoff.
The airplane was THE airplane of VMA-212 for the 1st Provisional Marine
Air/Ground Task Force (later the 1st Marine Brigade) in early 1955.
Oh yeah, the plane caught the #3 wire and landed without any further
damage. Gung Ho!

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04...
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>
>

Friend of mine, a General in the SAAF, sent this along to us a while back.
Amazing really.
I think they tossed it around a bit down at Navy TPS at Pax and I believe
someone finally came up with a computer model that worked for the scenario.
The fuselage around the intake area apparently created a great deal of lift
as the airplane went to a natural yaw angle with the one wing gone. Don't
remember exactly what the cross over airspeed was to get that yaw angle, but
I'm guessing it was extremely high.
I think he brought it in at over 250kts. Of course he was a bit light on
fuel :-)) Anyway, if I recall correctly, the MD engineers were mightily
impressed with their hardware :-))
Interesting incident. I seem to remember an F4 driver going off the Midway
with the wings folded as well. I think he made it as well but I don't
remember the details of the story.
Dudley

When I was a student at Spartan back in the 70's, one of my
class mates had been on a carrier off the VN coast. They
had a problem with a cat shot of an F8. The catapult did
not fire when the button was pushed. They had the pilot go
to idle and fold the wings. Then the catapult fired. With
the wings folded above the cockpit the pilot couldn't eject,
but the plane flew. They cleared the deck and the F8 landed
safely. I'm sure that the movie footage would be
interesting.



"Casey" > wrote in message
news:tcJOg.105$uj3.42@trnddc08...
|
| "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| > The special about it on History channel (about 2 years
ago) said that
| > at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until
they sent their
| > engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself
generates so
| > much lift it could still fly. If you think about the
amount of G's
| > those planes can pull and the amount of load (bombs ,
etc) they can
| > carry they must have an enormous amount of excess lift.
|
| One such Navy/Marine Corps airplane was the AD-1 Skyraider
which, if memory
| serves me, weighed less than the 3 tons of ordnance you
could hang under its
| wings.
| Somewhere in the Naval Aviation archives resides a set
of photos of an
| AD-1 Skyraider on base and short final to the USS Bon
Homme Richard ("Bonnie
| Dick") with one wing folded over the cockpit. Contrary to
engineering specs,
| both locking pins inthe left wing sheared when the pilot
pulled the airplane
| off the deck during takeoff.
| The airplane was THE airplane of VMA-212 for the 1st
Provisional Marine
| Air/Ground Task Force (later the 1st Marine Brigade) in
early 1955.
| Oh yeah, the plane caught the #3 wire and landed
without any further
| damage. Gung Ho!
|
|

Bumblebees can't fly either. I'm most amazed, not that it
could fly, but that the pilot recovered control.


"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04...
| >
http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
| >
| >
|
| Friend of mine, a General in the SAAF, sent this along to
us a while back.
| Amazing really.
| I think they tossed it around a bit down at Navy TPS at
Pax and I believe
| someone finally came up with a computer model that worked
for the scenario.
| The fuselage around the intake area apparently created a
great deal of lift
| as the airplane went to a natural yaw angle with the one
wing gone. Don't
| remember exactly what the cross over airspeed was to get
that yaw angle, but
| I'm guessing it was extremely high.
| I think he brought it in at over 250kts. Of course he was
a bit light on
| fuel :-)) Anyway, if I recall correctly, the MD engineers
were mightily
| impressed with their hardware :-))
| Interesting incident. I seem to remember an F4 driver
going off the Midway
| with the wings folded as well. I think he made it as well
but I don't
| remember the details of the story.
| Dudley
|
|

Wasn't there also once a case of an A-10 that suffered a midair
collision somewhere over Lousianna, and returned safely to the base
with only one engine left running, and most of one wing missing, and
one vertical stabilizer/rudder gone? And everbody has heard of the
story of the female pilot of an A-10 over Iraq who took a missle hit
and flew her crippled plane for an hour to safely land it back at base.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> The special about it on History channel (about 2 years ago) said that
> at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until they sent their
> engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself generates so
> much lift it could still fly. If you think about the amount of G's
> those planes can pull and the amount of load (bombs , etc) they can
> carry they must have an enormous amount of excess lift.
>

Its not about excess of lift, but of the fact that lift was generated on
one side only... it's not like having only one engine working...

--
Leonard

Jim Macklin wrote:
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>
>

Besides being both very good and lucky pilot he risked his life to save
machine that will be written off anyway. But I suppose he wasn't aware
of that at the time...

--
Leonard

Sorry everyone, I forgot this is a non-binaries group. Shoulda thunk first.

My apologies.

Mike

"Michael Nouak" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
> Not saying that your story didn't happen as told, but the wings of an F8
> don't fold above the cockpit...
>
> --
> Michael Nouak
> remove "nospamfor" to reply:
>
>
> "Jim Macklin" > schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:Y9LOg.22771$SZ3.21471@dukeread04...
>> When I was a student at Spartan back in the 70's, one of my
>> class mates had been on a carrier off the VN coast. They
>> had a problem with a cat shot of an F8. The catapult did
>> not fire when the button was pushed. They had the pilot go
>> to idle and fold the wings. Then the catapult fired. With
>> the wings folded above the cockpit the pilot couldn't eject,
>> but the plane flew. They cleared the deck and the F8 landed
>> safely. I'm sure that the movie footage would be
>> interesting.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Casey" > wrote in message
>> news:tcJOg.105$uj3.42@trnddc08...
>> |
>> | "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
>> |
>> ups.com...
>> | > The special about it on History channel (about 2 years
>> ago) said that
>> | > at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until
>> they sent their
>> | > engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself
>> generates so
>> | > much lift it could still fly. If you think about the
>> amount of G's
>> | > those planes can pull and the amount of load (bombs ,
>> etc) they can
>> | > carry they must have an enormous amount of excess lift.
>> |
>> | One such Navy/Marine Corps airplane was the AD-1 Skyraider
>> which, if memory
>> | serves me, weighed less than the 3 tons of ordnance you
>> could hang under its
>> | wings.
>> | Somewhere in the Naval Aviation archives resides a set
>> of photos of an
>> | AD-1 Skyraider on base and short final to the USS Bon
>> Homme Richard ("Bonnie
>> | Dick") with one wing folded over the cockpit. Contrary to
>> engineering specs,
>> | both locking pins inthe left wing sheared when the pilot
>> pulled the airplane
>> | off the deck during takeoff.
>> | The airplane was THE airplane of VMA-212 for the 1st
>> Provisional Marine
>> | Air/Ground Task Force (later the 1st Marine Brigade) in
>> early 1955.
>> | Oh yeah, the plane caught the #3 wire and landed
>> without any further
>> | damage. Gung Ho!
>> |
>> |
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Actually the report says it was repaired.


"Leonard Milcin Jr." > wrote
in message ...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| >
http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
| >
| >
|
| Besides being both very good and lucky pilot he risked his
life to save
| machine that will be written off anyway. But I suppose he
wasn't aware
| of that at the time...
|
| --
| Leonard

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:

> Jim Macklin wrote:
>
>> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Besides being both very good and lucky pilot he risked his life to save
> machine that will be written off anyway. But I suppose he wasn't aware
> of that at the time...
>

I suspect he was fully aware of what he was doing. Keep in mind that an
ejection isn't exactly friendly to the human body either. It is a
matter of judgement and if I was in a damaged airplane that was still
flying and reasonably controllable, I'd try to fly it down rather than
punch out and risk injury from that.


Matt

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until they sent their
> engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself generates so
> much lift it could still fly.

If this account is true, then what does this say about the engineers of
this aircraft? Isn't the lift generated by the body itself taken into
account by these engineers?

--
Peter

Leonard Milcin Jr. wrote:
> Jim Macklin wrote:
>> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
>>
>>
>
> Besides being both very good and lucky pilot he risked his life to save
> machine that will be written off anyway. But I suppose he wasn't aware
> of that at the time...
>
They put a new wing back on...

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
>
>> at first Boeing didn't believe it really happened until they sent their
>> engineers out. They explaination is that the body itself generates so
>> much lift it could still fly.
>
> If this account is true, then what does this say about the engineers of
> this aircraft? Isn't the lift generated by the body itself taken into
> account by these engineers?
>
> --
> Peter

Yeah, but...

At first glance, the engineers probably looked at first order issues - can
the airplane fly straight and level with most of one wing missing? I'm sure
they had enough data in their files to say... At a certain speed, the good
wing generates X pounds of lift and a rolling moment of Y pound feet. The
remaining aileron can generate a rolling moment of Z pound feet to counter
the rolling moment from the wing. The answer was probably that Y > Z, so
the aircraft would be uncontrollable.

As Dudley pointed out, there was probably a significant yaw induced due to
the asymmetric airframe. This would have reduced lift on the existing
wing, reduced the rolling moment, and allowed the wide fuselage to generate
enough lift at 250 knots to bring the airplane home. It is very doubtful
that the engineers had data for that flight condition at hand to override
the initial analysis based on the data they did have...

KB

> Besides being both very good and lucky pilot he risked his life to save
> machine that will be written off anyway.

.... and also to prevent it from impacting randomly.

Jose
--
There are more ways to skin a cat than there are cats.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Given enough power, almost anything will fly. Controllably? That's another
story. Pretty exciting stuff.

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:caLOg.22772$SZ3.8382@dukeread04...
> Bumblebees can't fly either. I'm most amazed, not that it
> could fly, but that the pilot recovered control.
>
>
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> |
> | "Jim Macklin" > wrote
> in message
> | news:2dFOg.22744$SZ3.2566@dukeread04...
> | >
> http://www.strangemilitary.com/content/item/110099.html
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Friend of mine, a General in the SAAF, sent this along to
> us a while back.
> | Amazing really.
> | I think they tossed it around a bit down at Navy TPS at
> Pax and I believe
> | someone finally came up with a computer model that worked
> for the scenario.
> | The fuselage around the intake area apparently created a
> great deal of lift
> | as the airplane went to a natural yaw angle with the one
> wing gone. Don't
> | remember exactly what the cross over airspeed was to get
> that yaw angle, but
> | I'm guessing it was extremely high.
> | I think he brought it in at over 250kts. Of course he was
> a bit light on
> | fuel :-)) Anyway, if I recall correctly, the MD engineers
> were mightily
> | impressed with their hardware :-))
> | Interesting incident. I seem to remember an F4 driver
> going off the Midway
> | with the wings folded as well. I think he made it as well
> but I don't
> | remember the details of the story.
> | Dudley
> |
> |
>
>