Military jet crashes into warehouse

"The plane may have experienced a "possible hydraulic failure," FOX 11 reported."​

"Sez who", me wonders.
 
Bellanca_Pilot said:
How, he bailed out!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Maybe after he avoided all the women and children, he saw a warehouse with Aquafina written on the side, then punched out at the last minute...it can happen.
 
Maybe he had to take a leak. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1991-03-22-9101260075-story.html I saw this one, kinda. I was at the park watching one of my kids play soccer. There's a noise and off in the distance a column of black smoke is rising, obviously from the airport, KPMD. I put on my I know all about airplanes and airports and stuff hat. I tell everyone all about how they got these old airplanes they douse in jet fuel every now and then and light them off so the Crash Crew can go practice putting them out. Next day I found out just how wrong I was. That it crashed on not only an airport, but an Air Force airport was just a random coincidence. What are the odds of that. It could have had a huge impact on ATC in the Southern California area. It splatted down just a couple hundred yards from Los Angeles Center. The joke of course was who pizzed that guy off and thank god his aim was off.
 
F-16 are getting real old problems with cracks, parts not made anymore just how long can they keep them flying like the B-52. They are great aircraft still front line, Over 4,600 aircraft have been built since production was approved in 1976 no longer being purchased by the U.S. Air Force,
 
Fallsrider said:
The article linked in post #2 mentioned sprinklers being on. Maybe the sprinklers prevented it? Just guessing.
Click to expand...
Those sprinklers wouldn't make a dent in a raging jet fuel fire. Think of those airport fire trucks with the giant streaming foam and how long it takes them to extinguish a jet fuel fire.
 
Could the pilot have dumped the fuel? Seems like I heard some rumors of that happening back when that jet crashed into an apartment in VA beach.
 
Fiveslide said:
Could the pilot have dumped the fuel? Seems like I heard some rumors of that happening back when that jet crashed into an apartment in VA beach.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that was the case in VA or Riverside. I'm not aware of a fighter than can dump internal fuel.
 
The f111 had the capability, but I never considered that turkey a fighter in any sense of the word. Should have been designated the b-111. Im not sure if some of the hornet variants that do tanking (growler et al) have said capability.
 
hindsight2020 said:
The f111 had the capability, but I never considered that turkey a fighter in any sense of the word. Should have been designated the b-111. Im not sure if some of the hornet variants that do tanking (growler et al) have said capability.
Click to expand...
Yep. It was really a bomber.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Im not sure if some of the hornet variants that do tanking (growler et al) have said capability.
Click to expand...
All Navy tactical jets can dump fuel, internal or external. Not *all* of it, but most of it.

Nauga,
at max trap
 
Don’t think the F-16 can dump. Believe the F-15 can from the wing tips. F-18 fuel dumps out the top of the vert fins.

One time worked a Hornet on departure who immediately declared and requested airspace to dump. Gave him a quadrant to hold on at 6,000 ft and kept everyone else 5 miles or 2,000 ft below. Easy peasy.
 
luvflyin said:
What is the typical difference between max landing and max trap?
Click to expand...
Max landing weight is a little different w/ Navy jets. They have a max trap, max field landing and max emergency landing weight. The difference is VSI at touchdown, so if you add power and soften up the landing you can use the max emergency weight.
For the Tomcat, those were 54,000, 60,000, and 72,000 respectively.

Also: dump rate was very similar to max AB burn rate, and you couldn’t do both at the same time. So when conditions permitted, it was more fun to burn it rather than dump it.
 
Cooter said:
Max landing weight is a little different w/ Navy jets. They have a max trap, max field landing and max emergency landing weight. The difference is VSI at touchdown, so if you add power and soften up the landing you can use the max emergency weight.
For the Tomcat, those were 54,000, 60,000, and 72,000 respectively.

Also: dump rate was very similar to max AB burn rate, and you couldn’t do both at the same time. So when conditions permitted, it was more fun to burn it rather than dump it.
Click to expand...

Was it possible to kick it out of trim, hit the ABs and light off the fuel? F-111 style? ;)
 
Eagles can dump all their gas until reaching feed tank fuel only - about 2600#. F-16’s can’t dump gas.
 
EvilEagle said:
Eagles can dump all their gas until reaching feed tank fuel only - about 2600#. F-16’s can’t dump gas.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! Your feed tanks only hold 2600?! Feed tank fuel is about 5k in a Rhino! Same dump idea though, everything except feed tanks can be dumped assuming normal external transfer. Seems McD created very similar machines in the Eagle and Hornet.
 
The two seat version of the A4 only had a 700 lb feed tank. A transfer failure required a landing ASAP! The F18ABCD has one of the most convoluted fuel system in existence for a smaller aircraft. 4 different fuselage tanks before you even get into the wings.
 
RhinoDrvr said:
Holy crap! Your feed tanks only hold 2600?! Feed tank fuel is about 5k in a Rhino! Same dump idea though, everything except feed tanks can be dumped assuming normal external transfer. Seems McD created very similar machines in the Eagle and Hornet.
Click to expand...
2600 seems like plenty to me but that's all I've ever flown (other than a little A4 time with Drakken). Min fuel for us is 1200 and 800 is emergency fuel. I routinely land with 2000 or just under.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top