grounded all US F15S's

[AquaShrimp]

I do see some articles by the USAF that say the F-16 has some cracks in its wings and hulls due to excessive use.  And I did find some mention of faulty welds causing engine failure.  But unlike the Canadian F-18s or the Navy's F-14s, the F-16s haven't been regulated for lower-g flight.

I didn't find any articles mentioning F-16 wings (or nose sections) breaking off in flight.

I think I read somewhere that only about 25% of F-16 losses were due to engine failure.  Most crashes (of any plane) are caused by pilot error.

[WilldCrd]

Originally posted by Dnil
werent the navy f-16s retired because of fatigue?

Im thinking your meaning the F-14 tomcats?
if so that is part of the reason.
It all boils down to money. The cost of keeping an F-14 serviced and able to do its job (which it did better than ANY other navy fighter) cost i think 4 times as much as keeping the newer F/A18's flying

The Tomcats were about the same age as the F-15's however due to the immense stresses put on the airframes they cost more to keep flying.

As to the F-16 debate yall might be thinking of a early manufacturing flaw in which the internal wiring wasnt properly secured and would chaff on the inside of the plane. This resulted in shorting out the hud and several flight instruments.

This issue resulted in some crashes one of wich was made into a movie due to the valiant efforts of the deceased pilots wife to FORCE the Air Force to admit the issue and Lockheed to fix all existing F-16's.
Just an FYI the plane had inverted at night in the clouds and the pilot "pulled" up to gain alt. Unfortunately he nosed down into the ground. The original AF report blamed pilot error which IIRC incensed all who knew him since he was reported to have been a very excellent pilot.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by eagl
Search for F-16 wing cracks though, and you'll find that hundreds of F-16s were either retired early, or require major wing rebuilds due to wing cracks occuring far before the expected service life expired.

Also, the planes are not as durable as the F-15 so they get retired long before the F-15 service life expires.

Oh yea... Calling the F-15 not a "real fighter" demonstrates that you are amazingly ignorant about modern fighter aircraft.  When it first flew, it had a gun and could out-maneuver any production fighter in the world.  That makes it a fighter in pretty much anyone's book (except yours apparently).

This makes the second time you've trumpeted your ignorance about aviation in the last couple weeks...  You might want to re-think how aggressively you post crap like this since you haven't shown that you have a shred of knowledge about this stuff.

Maybe you should take up gardening or something else where you can read a book or two and impress people with your knowledge.

 

Eagl,

We broke an F15 at edwards a few years ago.  Broke it good by over G in uncontrolled flight.

Of course it was made in 78 and took about 14 or 15gs.  De-milling it was a PITA.

It's now a static display.  I think the 15 is a great AC and can't understand this knee jerk but as allways "safety first"


PS you'd get sick to your stomach at how watered down BMT is getting.  It sounds all warrior like in "airman's magazine" and such but it's really getting stupid.  I'm not sure if I'm going to re-up after this tour.

We are creating a new banch of Airman that have to have somone do their work for them.   Blame the NCO first should be our war cry.

[WilldCrd]

Lots of guys i know arent reuping due to the southerly direction things are going.


personally I think its gonna end up biting us in da butt before to long.

Wonder how long till the conspiracy theorist decide its some kind master plan to either cripple us or force some more newer ucavs on us?

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Tiger
how many people have a car that was made in 1980 that still runs?

I have a car that was made in 1964 that still runs.


ack-ack

[Wmaker]

Originally posted by eagl
Hah...  Funny.  BS, but funny.

The last set of F-16s that fell out of the sky... A batch of bad welds in the afterburners caused the AB section to literally fall off the plane.  Since it's a single engine piece of..., losing one AB section means the plane fall down go boom.  

They lost a few F-16 from this before they grounded the fleet and returned a few dozen megabucks worth of engine parts to the manufacturer.

The F-15 can lose one of pretty much anything and can usually still fly home.

The F-15... What, one inflight breakup in 30 years or so?  Big whoopdee do.

Oh yea, the F-15E has demonstrated the ability to take 12+ G's with essentially no damage.  One guy did this in my squadron (12ish G's during a bombing run pullup) and after thorough inspections, the plane flew again about a week later.

Even the F-15A and C are pretty durable.  An early F-15 pulled about 11 G's and the only thing that flat-out broke was the fwd motor mount.  The engines just klonked down to rest on the engine bay floor (the main mounts did not fail), and the plane flew home.

Well, your thorough objectiveness in the matter is understandable.

Seriously speaking, I think both of these planes have shown to be capable world-class fighter aircraft in their own role if one looks at their service record and performance.

Although thankfully they haven't really had the ultimate baptism of fire against roughly as capable air force flying fighters these two would be competing against.

There always will be technical problems, fatigue and flaws in aircraft...always. In that sense if F-16 would have been too prone to problems I don't think they would still be flying them.

About the grounding...AFAIK it is a standard operating procedure in both civil and military aviation when an accident points to some alarming technical failure which' cause haven't yet been determined.

Does anyone know if there is any eyewitness/pilot reports published about this newest F-15 -accident?

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by WilldCrd
Im thinking your meaning the F-14 tomcats?

The Navy operated a handful of modified F-16s as aggressors for their Top Gun school.  Used to see them flying all over San Diego before they moved out.


ack-ack

[LePaul]

Wow, so once again AquaShrimp isn't the defining word on aviation?   Shocked, I am.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I have a car that was made in 1964 that still runs.


ack-ack

What is it?

[AquaShrimp]

Originally posted by LePaul
Wow, so once again AquaShrimp isn't the defining word on aviation?   Shocked, I am.

Lol, I could post the most bogus stuff I could possibly think of, and my reputation still wouldn't be 1/10th of what yours is.

[LePaul]

Like my reputation to you, much less anyone one a flight simulator BBS  means a thing to me.

But watching you make an arse of yourself, repeatedly, its truly entertaining.  

Shouldn't you be wooing us with your remarkable knowledge of, well, nothing?

Ah don't bother.  I bet your diploma was signed by Sally Struthers.

[Slash27]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp
Lol, I could post the most bogus stuff I could possibly think of, and my reputation still wouldn't be 1/10th of what yours is.

Really?  Maybe you should do a poll.

[AquaShrimp]

Originally posted by LePaul
Like my reputation to you, much less anyone one a flight simulator BBS  means a thing to me.

But watching you make an arse of yourself, repeatedly, its truly entertaining.  

Shouldn't you be wooing us with your remarkable knowledge of, well, nothing?

Ah don't bother.  I bet your diploma was signed by Sally Struthers.

For a person who spends as much time online as you do,  I would imagine that you invest quite a bit emotionally in your online persona.  For me, not so much.  I can pretty easily recognize who on this bbs is genuine and who isn't.  I don't mind agitating the goofballs.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
What is it?

1964 VW Sedan 1300cc Beetle that I've had for a little over 20 years now.


ack-ack

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
1964 VW Sedan 1300cc Beetle that I've had for a little over 20 years now.


ack-ack

LOL nice.