Thunderbird crash today

[John Doe]

Looks like one of the thunderbirds crashed today....pilot ejected.....

[David Hartung]

"John Doe" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Looks like one of the thunderbirds crashed today....pilot ejected.....

At least the Pilot got out!

[Aerophotos]

another SINGLE engined regular crashing Viper bites the dust.. told ya
so... twins much safer...

heavens forbird the F-35 ever entering service...it will replicate the
F-16 in every way.. just be a more costly toy.



David Hartung wrote:
>
> "John Doe" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > Looks like one of the thunderbirds crashed today....pilot ejected.....
>
> At least the Pilot got out!

[Keith Willshaw]

"Aerophotos" > wrote in message
...
> another SINGLE engined regular crashing Viper bites the dust.. told ya
> so... twins much safer...
>
> heavens forbird the F-35 ever entering service...it will replicate the
> F-16 in every way.. just be a more costly toy.
>
>

Lets look at the actual Class A loss rates shall we
http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html

F-4 4.64
F-5 8.82
F-15 2.47
F-16 4.19
F-16 (Engine mishaps) 1.53
F-102 13.69
F-104 30.63
F-106 9.47
F-111 6.13
F-117 4.62



Seems like the F-16 is a pretty safe airplane in fact, only the
F-15 has bettered it in safety terms

Keith

[Bil Reese]

Usually the problem with a two engine A/C loosing an engine very suddenly
is... Loosing one engine suddenly causes a yaw which to great to save the
plane still using the other engine and application of a LOT of opposite
rudder to avoid a fatal spin condition... From what I seem to remember
regarding general aviation, the crash rates of dual engine planes is about
1/2x higher than in single engine planes, BUT those dual engine planes that
fall out of the sky have a 3 times higher death rate per crash than single
engine planes.. so which one is more safe??? the plane that crashes a
little less, or the one that will kill you more quickly ??

BR



"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Aerophotos" > wrote in message
> ...
> > another SINGLE engined regular crashing Viper bites the dust.. told ya
> > so... twins much safer...
> >
> > heavens forbird the F-35 ever entering service...it will replicate the
> > F-16 in every way.. just be a more costly toy.
> >
> >
>
> Lets look at the actual Class A loss rates shall we
> http://safety.kirtland.af.mil/AFSC/RDBMS/Flight/stats/aircraft_stats.html
>
> F-4 4.64
> F-5 8.82
> F-15 2.47
> F-16 4.19
> F-16 (Engine mishaps) 1.53
> F-102 13.69
> F-104 30.63
> F-106 9.47
> F-111 6.13
> F-117 4.62
>
>
>
> Seems like the F-16 is a pretty safe airplane in fact, only the
> F-15 has bettered it in safety terms
>
> Keith
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

"Bil Reese" > wrote:

>Usually the problem with a two engine A/C loosing an engine very suddenly
>is... Loosing one engine suddenly causes a yaw which to great to save the
>plane still using the other engine and application of a LOT of opposite
>rudder to avoid a fatal spin condition... From what I seem to remember
>regarding general aviation, the crash rates of dual engine planes is about
>1/2x higher than in single engine planes, BUT those dual engine planes that
>fall out of the sky have a 3 times higher death rate per crash than single
>engine planes.. so which one is more safe??? the plane that crashes a
>little less, or the one that will kill you more quickly ??
>
>BR

There are stats and then there are stats. Which is right usually
relates to what you want to prove at the moment.

While what you say may be true with regard to general aviation, most
tactical military aircraft are center-line thrust, so the engine out
yaw is really insignificant. Not too many problems losing an engine
even in critical flight regimes as long as you're above min control
speeds.

OTOH, my experience with regard to combat engine losses was that there
was no significant difference between single engine and multi engine.
Certainly if the loss is a pure mechanical failure, a second engine is
nice, but if the first engine is lost due to battle damage, there's a
good chance the second engine will follow shortly thereafter.

Now, all that being said, I've got a good friend flogging heavies for
American Airlines who recently transitioned to 777s. I asked him about
what you do with a fully loaded crowd-killer that losses one of those
behemoth engines on the wing right at Vmc or shortly after lift-off.
His answer was that it's all computer controlled. Engine is pushed up,
engine is shut down, rudder is input, controls respond as required to
provide neutral control impressions to the driver. Neat stuff. Takes a
lot of the thrill out of the business.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...

<snip>
> Now, all that being said, I've got a good friend flogging heavies for
> American Airlines who recently transitioned to 777s. I asked him about
> what you do with a fully loaded crowd-killer that losses one of those
> behemoth engines on the wing right at Vmc or shortly after lift-off.
> His answer was that it's all computer controlled. Engine is pushed up,
> engine is shut down, rudder is input, controls respond as required to
> provide neutral control impressions to the driver. Neat stuff. Takes a
> lot of the thrill out of the business.

The 777 flight control computer provides "normal airplane" feel at all
times. Even though the control surfaces are not of a type that would provie
a push back on the yoke on approach, the pilot experiances the same feel as
if the airplane were "normal".

[Walt BJ]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> SNIP:
The other 'secret' about airline flying is that the maximum allowable
takeoff gross weight for each flight is always calculated on the
ability of the airplane to make the FAA-mandated climb profile after
losing an engine at V1 speed and safely clear all the obstacles on the
way. In Denver in the summer the 727s usually had some seats blocked
off due to this weight restriction. None of those hairy KC135 max
gross 'wartime' weight takeoffs!
Walt BJ

[MLenoch]

wrote:> In Denver in the summer the 727s usually had some seats blocked
>off due to this weight restriction.

Would those have been early model 727-200s out of Stapelton?
VL

[Wingedhoof]

>another SINGLE engined regular crashing Viper bites the dust.. told ya
>so... twins much safer...


Gee, I must have missed the outcome of the Safety Investigation Board when they
said there was an engine problem.

[Gene Storey]

"Walt BJ" > wrote
>
> The other 'secret' about airline flying is that the maximum allowable
> takeoff gross weight for each flight is always calculated on the
> ability of the airplane to make the FAA-mandated climb profile after
> losing an engine at V1 speed and safely clear all the obstacles on the
> way. In Denver in the summer the 727s usually had some seats blocked
> off due to this weight restriction. None of those hairy KC135 max
> gross 'wartime' weight takeoffs!

I used to love watching (and hearing) the A models take-off out of Riyadh
Military in the 80's (ELF-1) with 120 degrees in the shade. You could
hear them spool-up with water at least five miles away at the hotel, and
then they would still be at 500 ft waiting for airspeed passing over the
hotel (Al Yamamah). Jeeze, that's over 20 years ago already...

[Gene Storey]

"Wingedhoof" > wrote
> >another SINGLE engined regular crashing Viper bites the dust.. told ya
> >so... twins much safer...
>
>
> Gee, I must have missed the outcome of the Safety Investigation Board when they
> said there was an engine problem.

No electricity, plane stops flying, pilot gives it back to the taxpayers.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gene Storey" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Walt BJ" > wrote
> >
> > The other 'secret' about airline flying is that the maximum allowable
> > takeoff gross weight for each flight is always calculated on the
> > ability of the airplane to make the FAA-mandated climb profile after
> > losing an engine at V1 speed and safely clear all the obstacles on the
> > way. In Denver in the summer the 727s usually had some seats blocked
> > off due to this weight restriction. None of those hairy KC135 max
> > gross 'wartime' weight takeoffs!
>
> I used to love watching (and hearing) the A models take-off out of Riyadh
> Military in the 80's (ELF-1) with 120 degrees in the shade. You could
> hear them spool-up with water at least five miles away at the hotel, and
> then they would still be at 500 ft waiting for airspeed passing over the
> hotel (Al Yamamah). Jeeze, that's over 20 years ago already...

And the Blackhawk won't even light up at that temperature. (electrics)