F-15 (One-Wing Wonder)

Discussion in 'Diamond Lil's' started by bigbaddog, Jul 20, 2007.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. On May 1, 1983, a simulated dogfight training took place between two F-15Ds and four A-4N Skyhawks over the skies of the Negev (Israel). The F-15D (#957, nicknamed 'Markia Shchakim', five killmarks) was used for the conversion of a new pilot in the squadron. Here is the description of the event as described in "Pressure suit":

    At some point I collided with one of the Skyhawks; at first I didn't realize it. I felt a big strike, and I thought we passed through the jet stream of one of the other aircraft. Before I could react, I saw the big fireball created by the explosion of the Skyhawk. The radio started to deliver calls saying that the Skyhawk pilot has ejected, and I understood that the fireball was the Skyhawk that exploded, and the pilot was ejected automatically.

    There was a tremendous fuel stream going out of the wing, and I understood it was badly damaged. The aircraft flew without control in a strange spiral. I re-connected the electric control to the control surfaces, and slowly gained control on the aircraft until I was straight and level again.

    It was clear to me that I had to eject. When I gained control I said, "Hey, wait, don't eject yet!". No warning light was on and the navigation computer worked as usual; I just needed a warning light in my panel to indicate that I missed a wing ...Ó The instructor ordered me to eject.

    The wing is a fuel tank, and the fuel indicator showed 0.000 so I assumed that the jet stream sucked all the fuel out of the other tanks. However, I remembered that the valves operate only in one direction, so that I might have enough fuel to get to the nearest airfield and land. I worked like a machine, wasn't scared, and didn't worry. All I knew was as long as the sucker flies, I'm gonna stay inside. I started to decrease the airspeed, but at that point one wing was not enough. So I went into a spin down and to the right. A second before I decided to eject, I pushed the throttle and lit the afterburner. I gained speed and thus got control of the aircraft again. Next thing I did was lowering the arresting hook.

    A few seconds later I touched the runway at 260 knots, about twice the recommended speed, and called the tower to erect the emergency recovery net. The hook was torn away from the fuselage because of the high speed, but I managed to stop 1ten meters before the net.

    I turned back to shake the hand of my instructor, who had urged me to eject, and then I saw it for the first time - no wing!!!

    The IAF (Israeli Air Force) contacted McDonnell-Douglas and asked for information about possibility to land an F-15 with one wing. MD replied that this is aerodynamically impossible, as confirmed by computer simulations ... Then they received the photo ...

    After two months the same F-15 got a new wing and returned to action. McDonnell-Douglas attributes the saving of this aircraft to the amount of lift generated by the engine intake/body and "a hell of a good pilot"."



    [​IMG]

    Top Gun? Yeah - I think so.
     
  2. Nope, I'd have banged out.
     
  3. The same thing happened before with a US Navy F-4 Phantom.

    I seen some weird test plane that could fly without wings from the 1960s but it was dropped from the wing of a B-52 Bomber.
     
  4. Wonder if his new Name will be "Stumpy"?Lucky bloke!
     
  5. some stunning pics on that site BBD!
     
  6. Yawn !!!!

    Hang around in pprune and you will get these things well before any of the WAFU wannabees in here.

    This vid has been around for a few dog watches now!!!

    Here:F-15 Vid
     
  7. i bet a harrier could do it
     
  8. what am i saying - we'ed still be sat on the ground up shit-creek waiting for spares.
     
  9. C'mon,,, think about it dick,,, of course a Harrier couldn't do it,, go back to your basic "theory of flight" lessons,,, Oh,, you are a WAFU wannabee! you wouldn't know the first thing about it would you !!

    A harrier has completely different design characteristics to the F-15 and would certainly NOT be able to do the same thing! Sorry to piss on your bonfire mate !
     
  10. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    Yaaaaaaawn! And those particular flight characteristics are? and just why could the F15 land on one wing? Turn up, gob off now back it up, please feel free to be as technical as you like, I assure you I will understand your drivel!
     
  11. As I understand it "basic theory of flight" says neither should be able to do it. :bball:
     
  12. Errrrr,, somtething maybe to do with the harrier having a tubular fuselage and anular wings.

    The F-15 having a box fuselage with low wing loading (weight to wing area ratio) with a high thrust-to-weight ratio enabling the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.

    Any more info, give me a call in the ETS !

    :afro: (clue for all the Sherlocks!)
     
  13. Put a big enough engine on a Shed and it will fly!
     

  14. Yeah,, that's what THEY said about the bumble bee too eh?

    Anyway,, 1983???? hot off the press thread eh?

    Google + you tube + pprune= this shite topic ?
    1983????????
    Finger NOT on the pulse!
     
  15. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I think you mean anhedral Sam, and you certainly don't work in any fixed wing ETS, I wonder how I know that? You seem to be confused though, are you referring the Harrier's Pegasus engine and its annular combustion chamber? Easy mistake to make I suppose!

    You don't think the F-15 flight stability was somewhat reliant on the its exceptionally large tailplane then despite its aerodynamic body which only creates significant lift at above mach 0.3?

    By the way have you heard the term vectored thrust? I know it's a bit old hat but surprisingly the Harrier is fully equipped with a nifty little system that passes the ronseal test.
     
  16. I agree with Andy's shed example. And I understand a little (very little!) about the principles of rocket flight. What I don't understand is Sam The Man's attitude. As for the bumble bee, I thought that was bollocks, that the physics was known? A bit like those who continue to say, 'A helicopter shoudn't be able to fly?' As a merely interested party I'm more than happy to be corrected. :)
     
  17. The F-15 having a "Box fuselage" and the fact that the tail was undamaged and providing a SUBSTANTIAL amount of lift to the overall A/C.

    If the Harrrier were to lose a wing,,, 40% of lift gone?
    MOOT POINT,,,

    The YID did a good job of getting it on the ground and being able to talk about it,, BZ to him and his winger.

    The harrier,,,,,, state why you think it COULD land ?
     
  18. YAWN,,,

    Harriers are great,, 801 ,, 800,,, blah blah blah,,,, zoom zoom,,, noise noise,,,

    blah blah,,, yawn yawn,,,
     
  19. chieftiff

    chieftiff War Hero Moderator

    I didn't say it could in those circumstances, it does have that nifty little vectored thrust system though. I doubt he could have recovered enough stability whilst reducing airspeed to use it and the 8th stage air leak at 550 degrees centigrade into a now open fuel tank would have caused a few missed heart beats!
     

Share This Page