PLANE FLIES FOR TWO HOURS WITH WING MISSING

[Richard Riley]

And here I think it's a problem when I lose a fuel cap...

http://tinyurl.com/7jw5b

===========================
PLANE FLIES FOR TWO HOURS WITH WING MISSING

09:30 - 19 August 2005
A Dozy (Ireland) pilot flew his plane for two hours before he noticed
that five-and-a-half feet of one wing had been torn off by a tree on
take-off. The Irish pilot told investigators he thought he had been
"struck by a little bird" on takeoff in his five-seater Cessna 210.

But despite two of the three passengers being top flight engineers on
their way to fix a Boeing 767, no one noticed that half the left wing,
containing one fuel tank, was missing. The unnamed pilot was forced to
make an emergency landing at Jersey International Airport two hours
later after he finally spotted the fuel gauge plummeting towards empty.

The drama unfolded as the Cessna took off from Brittas House Airstrip,
18 miles east of Shannon in Ireland last Friday.

As the small aircraft - bound for Lisbon in Portugal - left the runway
it collided with treetops which ripped off a 5ft 7ins section of the
left wing. The fuel tank was later found on the ground - back in
Ireland.

Jersey International Airport was alerted and air traffic controllers
guided the damaged plane to safety.

A spokesman for the airport said: "We were amazed it had managed to fly
as long as it had, it was in a real state when it came in.

"The pilot was the most shocked of us all as he had not realised the
extent of the damage while he was flying."

[Rich S.]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> And here I think it's a problem when I lose a fuel cap...

'Tis one of the pleasures of flyin' after ye've had a tot or two of the
Irish. Leetle things don't bother you near so much, don't ye know.

Rich S.

[Richard Riley]

And the wing twern't missin' atall. It was sittin as nice as can be
off the departure end o' Brittas House airstrip...

OTOH, he had more wing left than this guy

http://www.f-16.net/varia_article8.html

[[email protected]]

I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
story stinks.

Dan

[jc]

wrote:

> I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
> means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
> of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
> story stinks.

Pics

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/illsaywhen/album?.dir=9797&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cmfalloon/album?.dir=b755&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cmfalloon/my_photos
--

regards

jc

LEGAL - I don't believe what I wrote and neither should you. Sobriety and/or
sanity of the author is not guaranteed

EMAIL - and are not valid email
addresses. news2x at perentie is valid for a while.

[Harry K]

wrote:
> I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
> means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
> of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
> story stinks.
>
> Dan

I have to agree. Even assuming it could remain in the air (pics look
like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), there would
be drastic trim problems. That the pilot and passengers would fly that
long without noticing odd flight characteristics and noone would glance
out the window and "say old chap, I do believe we are missing
something".

Harry K

[Rich S.]

"jc" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> Pics
>
> http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/illsaywhen/album?.dir=9797&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph//my_photos
>
> http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cmfalloon/album?.dir=b755&.src=ph&store=&prodid=&.done=http%3a//uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/cmfalloon/my_photos

Ennybody else notice that is a turbine-powered 210? Am I living in
yesteryear? I didn't know that a turboprop was an option on a 210.

Rich "Shaking my head" S.

[Roger]

On 19 Aug 2005 19:12:02 -0700, "Harry K" >
wrote:

>
wrote:
>> I don't believe any of it. Five feet off a 210's wing
>> means crash, now. Aileron gone and everything. The fuel tank is inboard
>> of that section, anyway, unless he had Flint aux tip tanks. The whole
>> story stinks.
>>
>> Dan
>
>I have to agree. Even assuming it could remain in the air (pics look
>like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), there would
>be drastic trim problems. That the pilot and passengers would fly that
>long without noticing odd flight characteristics and noone would glance

The 210 flys like a truck and can haul just about as much. They might
not notice.

>out the window and "say old chap, I do believe we are missing
>something".
>
Looks to me like he only lost a wing tip and the leading edge is a
little frayed.

Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
to me.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Harry K

[Flyingmonk]

Harry K wrote:
>>pics look like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), >> If you look closely at pic 100-0491, the first picture, you will see that about 3' of the aileron is missing and the wing tip extension accounts for the other 2-1/2' .

Bryan

[Drew Dalgleish]

>Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
>to me.
>
>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>www.rogerhalstead.com
>
Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
that it's a turbine?

[[email protected]]

Thats a turbine, i have worked on one and you can tell because of how
large the exast is and the prop is feathered like a turbine, single
engine recipes don't feather all the way.
Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> >Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
> >to me.
> >
> >Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> >(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> >www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
> that it's a turbine?

[[email protected]]

Missing a few feet of wing in the pictures, for sure, but
that doesn't mean that it happened in flight, nor that it flew that
way. I've seen similar pictures of aircraft damaged that way on the
ground by trucks or other aircraft, or even by bad landings in strong
crosswinds. Even taxying too close to a signpost at excessive speed
could do it. The end of the wing is badly mashed and would present huge
drag and really serious controllability problems.
Let's see:
Mashed left wingtip, massive drag requiring all the
rudder he has, maybe not enough at that.
Loss of lift from mashed wing section (disturbed airflow)
requiring extra lift from aileron, which itself is a third gone
Loss of lift because part of wing is missing, meaning
more aileron required. Those ailerons simply can't make up the
difference.

And nobody noticed. Right.

The engine is probably a Soloy conversion, more
common on 206s. An Allison turbine set up to drive a prop.

Dan

[Roger]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 16:11:05 GMT, (Drew
Dalgleish) wrote:

>
>>Doesn't look like a turboprop though. Those look like normal stacks
>>to me.
>>
>>Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
>>(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>>www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>Looks to me that the prop is fully feathered. Would that not indicate
>that it's a turbine?

I'd think so. I missed that photo.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Rich Ahrens]

wrote:

> Missing a few feet of wing in the pictures, for sure, but
> that doesn't mean that it happened in flight, nor that it flew that
> way. I've seen similar pictures of aircraft damaged that way on the
> ground by trucks or other aircraft, or even by bad landings in strong
> crosswinds. Even taxying too close to a signpost at excessive speed
> could do it. The end of the wing is badly mashed and would present huge
> drag and really serious controllability problems.

So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
them, you somehow don't believe it happened???

[Harry K]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> Harry K wrote:
> >>pics look like it would and I don't think that is 5 1/2 ft missing), >> If you look closely at pic 100-0491, the first picture, you will see that about 3' of the aileron is missing and the wing tip extension accounts for the other 2-1/2' .
>
> Bryan

Yeah, I guess you're right. My fist impression was that the if it were
5 1/2' the entire wing would be excessively wrong. Nope, doing a quick
scale job on the right wing makes it only about 15 or 16 ft long. That
yields just under 1/3 of the wing gone. Yeah, right it flew that way
and noone noticed.

Harry K

[[email protected]]

>So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
>where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
>them, you somehow don't believe it happened???

So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net hoaxes.

I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having
trouble believing this one.

Dan

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> >So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
> >where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
> >them, you somehow don't believe it happened???
>
> So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
> it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
> 'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net hoaxes.
>
> I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having
> trouble believing this one.
>
> Dan

I don't know much about airplanes, hopefully enough to stay alive up
there, but I think it's entirely plausible that the plane could have
flown in that condition, and even that the occupants might not have
noticed. What I'm having a devil of a time believing, is that an impact
of the magnitude necessary to rip off the wingtip in flight wouldn't
have dragged the damn thing out of the sky. Supposedly this happened due
to impacting trees just after takeoff, so would I be wrong to assume
that there wasn't much airspeed or altitude available for recovery from
such a "disturbance?" To me, that's the fishiest part of the story.

[Harry K]

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
> > >So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
> > >where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
> > >them, you somehow don't believe it happened???
> >
> > So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
> > it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
> > 'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net hoaxes.
> >
> > I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having
> > trouble believing this one.
> >
> > Dan
>
> I don't know much about airplanes, hopefully enough to stay alive up
> there, but I think it's entirely plausible that the plane could have
> flown in that condition, and even that the occupants might not have
> noticed. What I'm having a devil of a time believing, is that an impact
> of the magnitude necessary to rip off the wingtip in flight wouldn't
> have dragged the damn thing out of the sky. Supposedly this happened due
> to impacting trees just after takeoff, so would I be wrong to assume
> that there wasn't much airspeed or altitude available for recovery from
> such a "disturbance?" To me, that's the fishiest part of the story.

That too. Were the plane to stay in the air, I can't fathom a pilot
not noticing the hell of a jolt that had to accompany it. This whole
story doesn't pass the smell test.

Harry K

[Rich Ahrens]

wrote:

>>So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
>>where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
>>them, you somehow don't believe it happened???
>
>
> So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because
> it's in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
> 'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net
> hoaxes.

Well, a Pinckneyville attendee (who prefers to remain nameless) knows
the pilot on the flight and has shared information with me, so yes, I
believe it happened. Of course that won't convince you, but since you
don't my source yourself, his posting here wouldn't do any good either.
I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.

> I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having trouble
> believing this one.

And I'm part-owner of a 182 which hit a tree on a missed approach,
ripping off the left wing tip and crushing the leading edge of the left
wing from the strut out to what was left, among other damage. The folks
on board flew it back from Duluth to Minneapolis in that condition at
night. They damned well knew something was wrong, and I'm sure the 210
crew must have as well - that part smells of ass-covering. But it flew,
and I believe the 210 did as well. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Here's that 210 in happier times, for anyone interested:

http://www.pacnetair.com/aircraft.html

[[email protected]]

>I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.

Wrong. A respectably-published report would convince me. I'll
wait until someone points it out.
The pictures look like it had STD'd fiberglass wing extensions
or Flint tip tanks, and if so, that may be all that's missing, not part
of the actual wing structure. And not five feet. Whacking off wing
structure will often damage the wing root structure as well, causing
much more serious damage.

Dan

[Bart D. Hull]

Man did you see the rental prices for the 182 and 172 in the
UK? What's the exchange rate now? About $1.75 per UK pound?

To quote from a popular cable show. "We've got it made in
the USA!" I don't think I can complain about a $80 an hour
wet 172 anymore.

Bart D. Hull

Tempe, Arizona

Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/engine.html
for my Subaru Engine Conversion
Check http://www.inficad.com/~bdhull/fuselage.html
for Tango II I'm building.

Remove -nospam to reply via email.

Rich Ahrens wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>> So...even though the missing parts were found on the ground in Ireland,
>>> where the flight departed, and the aircraft landed in Jersey missing
>>> them, you somehow don't believe it happened???
>>
>>
>>
>> So. You believe everything you read on the Internet? Just because it's
>> in the paper, or because someone published this "article" on the
>> 'net, doesn't make it true. I'm tired of being sucked into 'net
>> hoaxes.
>
>
> Well, a Pinckneyville attendee (who prefers to remain nameless) knows
> the pilot on the flight and has shared information with me, so yes, I
> believe it happened. Of course that won't convince you, but since you
> don't my source yourself, his posting here wouldn't do any good either.
> I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.
>
>> I'm a pilot and an aircraft mechanic. I'm really having trouble
>> believing this one.
>
>
> And I'm part-owner of a 182 which hit a tree on a missed approach,
> ripping off the left wing tip and crushing the leading edge of the left
> wing from the strut out to what was left, among other damage. The folks
> on board flew it back from Duluth to Minneapolis in that condition at
> night. They damned well knew something was wrong, and I'm sure the 210
> crew must have as well - that part smells of ass-covering. But it flew,
> and I believe the 210 did as well. The evidence is incontrovertible.
>
> Here's that 210 in happier times, for anyone interested:
>
> http://www.pacnetair.com/aircraft.html

[Ernest Christley]

Smitty Two wrote:

>
> I don't know much about airplanes, hopefully enough to stay alive up
> there, but I think it's entirely plausible that the plane could have
> flown in that condition, and even that the occupants might not have
> noticed. What I'm having a devil of a time believing, is that an impact
> of the magnitude necessary to rip off the wingtip in flight wouldn't
> have dragged the damn thing out of the sky. Supposedly this happened due
> to impacting trees just after takeoff, so would I be wrong to assume
> that there wasn't much airspeed or altitude available for recovery from
> such a "disturbance?" To me, that's the fishiest part of the story.

Add to that it's a high wing. No one noticed the treetops OVER their
heads!!



--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."

[Rich Ahrens]

wrote:

>>I'm guessing that even reports from the IAA or AAIB wouldn't persuade you.
>
>
> Wrong. A respectably-published report would convince me. I'll
> wait until someone points it out.
> The pictures look like it had STD'd fiberglass wing extensions
> or Flint tip tanks, and if so, that may be all that's missing, not part
> of the actual wing structure. And not five feet. Whacking off wing
> structure will often damage the wing root structure as well, causing
> much more serious damage.

I don't know what photos you're looking at, but this one clearly shows a
majority of the left aileron missing, not to mention the wing structure
forward of it:

http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/illsaywhen/detail?.dir=9797&.dnm=a473.jpg&.src=ph

[COLIN LAMB]

There was a pre-war Italian design that had one wing shorter than the other
to compensate for the P factor.

Perhaps this is a modern version.

[Flyingmonk]

Let's not forget about Burt Rutan's Boomerang... It was an Asymetrical
twin.

Bryan

[Flyingmonk]

I'm pretty sure they noticed... Maybe gettherenitis and not wanting to
admit fault (machismo) made them continue.

Bryan

[[email protected]]

The Germans in WWII also had a single-engined weirdo airplane
that had an offset fuselage. However, all such asymmetrical designs
only appeared asymmetrical; the lift was distributed so that the the
thing was balanced properly. You cannot chop a chunk of wing off any
airplane and expect it to fly normally. How much would we have to knock
off a 210's wing before it would be noticeably wing-heavy?

Dan

[Harry K]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> I'm pretty sure they noticed... Maybe gettherenitis and not wanting to
> admit fault (machismo) made them continue.
>
> Bryan

Now I can accept that the plane could fly, better 'stay in the air',
that way. What I can't accept is that any knowledgeable pilot would
continue a flight for -2 hours- in a plane that heavily damaged or that
the passengers would agree to it. I can't feature fighting the
controls in an out of trim plane for that long. I suspect that if this
story is true, there is one pilot without a license now.

Harry K

[COLIN LAMB]

"How much would we have to knock off a 210's wing before it would be
noticeably wing-heavy?"

Apparently at least 5'7".

Colin

[Smitty Two]

In article . com>,
"Harry K" > wrote:

> Flyingmonk wrote:
> > I'm pretty sure they noticed... Maybe gettherenitis and not wanting to
> > admit fault (machismo) made them continue.
> >
> > Bryan
>
> Now I can accept that the plane could fly, better 'stay in the air',
> that way. What I can't accept is that any knowledgeable pilot would
> continue a flight for -2 hours- in a plane that heavily damaged or that
> the passengers would agree to it. I can't feature fighting the
> controls in an out of trim plane for that long. I suspect that if this
> story is true, there is one pilot without a license now.
>
> Harry K

Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
recall that their licenses were revoked...

[Matt Whiting]

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Harry K" > wrote:
>
>
>>Flyingmonk wrote:
>>
>>>I'm pretty sure they noticed... Maybe gettherenitis and not wanting to
>>>admit fault (machismo) made them continue.
>>>
>>>Bryan
>>
>>Now I can accept that the plane could fly, better 'stay in the air',
>>that way. What I can't accept is that any knowledgeable pilot would
>>continue a flight for -2 hours- in a plane that heavily damaged or that
>>the passengers would agree to it. I can't feature fighting the
>>controls in an out of trim plane for that long. I suspect that if this
>>story is true, there is one pilot without a license now.
>>
>>Harry K
>
>
> Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
> non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
> during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
> manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
> making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
> rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
> the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
> recall that their licenses were revoked...

True, but I think they had the OK to continue from the airframe
designer. :-)


Matt

[Tim Ward]

"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
> Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
> non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
> during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
> manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
> making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
> rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
> the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
> recall that their licenses were revoked...

And after they ripped them off, they returned to the airport from which they
started.

Tim Ward

[Harry K]

Tim Ward wrote:
> "Smitty Two" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
> > non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
> > during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
> > manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
> > making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
> > rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
> > the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
> > recall that their licenses were revoked...
>
> And after they ripped them off, they returned to the airport from which they
> started.
>
> Tim Ward

After doing an outside loop!

Harry K

[Harry K]

Smitty Two wrote:
> In article . com>,
> "Harry K" > wrote:
>
> > Flyingmonk wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure they noticed... Maybe gettherenitis and not wanting to
> > > admit fault (machismo) made them continue.
> > >
> > > Bryan
> >
> > Now I can accept that the plane could fly, better 'stay in the air',
> > that way. What I can't accept is that any knowledgeable pilot would
> > continue a flight for -2 hours- in a plane that heavily damaged or that
> > the passengers would agree to it. I can't feature fighting the
> > controls in an out of trim plane for that long. I suspect that if this
> > story is true, there is one pilot without a license now.
> >
> > Harry K
>
> Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
> non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
> during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
> manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
> making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
> rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
> the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
> recall that their licenses were revoked...

Hardly the same thing. In that case, the damage was symmetrical and
involved only a small fraction of both wings. In the current case the
damage involved a significant fraction of just one wing.

Harry K

[Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired]

Harry K wrote:
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
>>"Smitty Two" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>Jeana Yeager and Dick Rutan flew the Voyager around the world, a
>>>non-stop flight of 10 days, with both winglets having been torn off
>>>during the takeoff roll. They actually had to shake them loose by
>>>manuevering, because the drag they were causing in the dangling form was
>>>making the plane handle poorly. Still they were left with loose skin,
>>>rough jagged foam sticking out, dangling wires, etc. Not to mention that
>>>the tips had been added to correct a tail-heavy condition. I don't
>>>recall that their licenses were revoked...
>>
>>And after they ripped them off, they returned to the airport from which they
>>started.
>>
>>Tim Ward
>
>
> After doing an outside loop!
>
> Harry K
>
Yes, one long, slow outside loop :)

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Flyingmonk]

http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air1.jpg

http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air2.jpg

http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air3.jpg

[Matt Whiting]

Flyingmonk wrote:
> http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air1.jpg
>
> http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air2.jpg
>
> http://www.micom.net/oops/F-18mid-air3.jpg
>

Well, the last picture sure isn't the same as the first two. And one
has to wonder if the first picture isn't computer enhanced in this day
and age.

Matt

[[email protected]]

And I suppose that pilot didn't notice any flight handling
differences, either.

[Terry Aardema]

wrote in news:1125931002.073241.151470
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> And I suppose that pilot didn't notice any flight handling
> differences, either.

He may not have noticed any flight handling differences, but he sure should
have noticed all the visual and voice warnings.

But there is a bit of difference between a fly-by-wire aircraft with dual
flight control computers, quad redundent flight control data busses, and up
to triple redundent flight control actuators (hydralic, electric and direct
linkage), with the flight control software specifically designed to handle
battle damage and still complete the mission ...


.... and your standard issue general aviation aircraft, where fly-by-wire
refers to the steel cables in the control system.

It is completely possible for a F/A-18 (or, if it's wearing Canadian
colours (which is where *I* got my experiance), a CF-188) to fly and be
"completely" controllable with up to half of it's flight control surfaces
damaged, missing and/or inoperative. With more than half of the flight
control surfaces unusable; as long as both wings are intact out to the
wing-fold or better.

BTW, I've seen these photo's before, and this was an actual incident.
Although I've moved on and no longer work for the Canadian Department of
Defence, I keep in contact with some of the people I worked with.

Terry Aardema
ex-CF-188 Mission Computer Programmer
ex-CF-188 Flight Safety Invesigator (but only the computer side of things,
don't ask me about the physical side of things!)