NationStates Jolt Archive

a wing and a prayer (http://www.trikernews.com/PDFs_&_JPGs/0904_mar06/0904_3_F15.pdf)...

F-15 looses one wing during combat excercises... and the pilot flies it home.

http://kg.typepad.com/banter/images/f15.jpg

All I can say is... Damn...

Even the manufacturers, McDonald Douglas is puzzled on this one.

looks like a budget cut if I ever saw one :D

Now they can cut off right wing from all F-15 planes...

Now they can cut off right wing from all F-15 planes...

And re-use it as a left wing on all the new ones.

actually, they have to have fighters with only right wings as well, after all, some pilots are left handed after all.. :D


Considering the fact that the pilot was a trainee...

So all those movies where the plane crashes after losing one jet are BS? Maverick and Goose shouldn't have crashed! Damn you Top Gun!!!!!

Even the manufacturers, McDonald Douglas is puzzled on this one.

McDonnell Douglas

So all those movies where the plane crashes after losing one jet are BS? Maverick and Goose shouldn't have crashed! Damn you Top Gun!!!!!
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSEEEE

The fifth picture is photoshopped. The other pictures do not suggest in any way that an F-15 made a controllled landing with 1 wing.

So all those movies where the plane crashes after losing one jet are BS? Maverick and Goose shouldn't have crashed! Damn you Top Gun!!!!!
It looks like both engines are still intact. That's most likely what allowed them to get home (IANAAE), it's just a matter of adjusting the thrust to compensate for the lack of lift over that other wing.

The fifth picture is photoshopped. The other pictures do not suggest in any way that an F-15 made a controllled landing with 1 wing.

You sure about the fifth?

pretty damn amazing.

I wonder why this is just coming up now. That happened 23 years ago, hell the pilot is probably reitred from active duty by now.

Is is just me, or do some of those air-shots look fake?

Edited to add: So it isn't just me.

I'd bet that flight suit was ruined.

The incident did happen. I read about it a few years ago.

You sure about the fifth?
12
34
56
78

Number 5 in under control. It's near the ground. I mean, the air brake is up and the flaps are down! If that plane had lost its wing in that state, you'd still be able to se the wing, because it would've been a mess within milliseconds of losing the wing.

Number 3 is fine. That plane just had its wing shot off (or it fell off, or whatever), but there's nothing to suggest that it's under control, i.e., it's very likely is went into a spin 2 seconds after that photo was taken, before tumbling towards the ground and disappearing in a huge ball of flame.

As for the rest, the 1st is two intact planes as far as I can see, and the others are wingless planes on the ground. I assume, therefore, that they lost their wings while on the ground.

12
34
56
78

Number 5 in under control. It's near the ground. I mean, the air brake is up and the flaps are down! If that plane had lost its wing in that state, you'd still be able to se the wing, because it would've been a mess within milliseconds of losing the wing.

Presumably that was a bit of time after the wing was lost, right? But I don't quite understand you, what would have been a mess?

I believe the photos, with the History Channell logo on it is simulated. thus the wing, not being sheared off, but was instead removed and was tested by the manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas.

all simulations failed to fly, much less land safely... so they went to the Middle East to talk to the trainee to verify his story.

they, McDonnell Douglas, repaired the plane and sent it back into service.

I believe the photos, with the History Channell logo on it is simulated. thus the wing, not being sheared off, but was instead removed and was tested by the manufacturers, McDonnell Douglas.

Wait, what? The logo is simulated?

Wait, what? The logo is simulated?
no the pics are. to show what it would've looked like on landing. :D

then again... with copycat brands outthere...

This is a true story.
I was stationed in Bahrain during Desert Shield/Storm as an A6 bombardier. One of the other squadrons had a plane get a wing clipped off by a guy wire on an especially tall tower. The pilot didn't even know he had problem more severe than a flight hydraulic failure until he landed. These military aircraft are capable of sustaining quite a bit of damage and still bringing the crew home.

no the pics are. to show what it would've looked like on landing. :D

then again... with copycat brands outthere...

What makes you think that?

What makes you think that?
what, that the pics are simulated or not of the actual jet taking off and landing?


simple, doubt that there was someone with a video camera to catch it. also there are other forums out there that also discussed this.

I think also, MD did try to simulate the conditions, and that is what History Channel got a hold of. gotta find that link...

what, that the pics are simulated or not of the actual jet taking off and landing?


simple, doubt that there was someone with a video camera to catch it. also there are other forums out there that also discussed this.

Why wouldn't there be a camera? It was a training session.

Why wouldn't there be a camera? It was a training session.simulated combat. and one cannot assume there was a camera pointed on each and every plane.

simulated combat. and one cannot assume there was a camera pointed on each and every plane.

There were only six planes...And, if one were to lose a wing, I'd expect all the cameras to be on it. It was simulated in that it wasn't actually an enemy being fought. It happened outside a computer.

I think you'll find it was an israeli F-15 on a training mission, collided with either another F-15 or a training aircraft , flew home with 1 wing missing and part of the tail damaged

I think also he landed the plane at a far higher speed than normal, because the body of the plane was generating lift at 250mph plus, which is how he got home in the first place.


It IS a true story

Aren't A-10 Warthogs meant to be able to fly with 90% damage or something?

Still, this is quite impressive, although not completely unexpected.

There were only six planes...And, if one were to lose a wing, I'd expect all the cameras to be on it. It was simulated in that it wasn't actually an enemy being fought. It happened outside a computer.
one lost a wing, the other exploded. guess they were more concerned about the pilot that had to bail then the plane that's flying away.

I read something where someone said the pilot was demoted for disobeying the instructor's orders... then promoted for saving the plane.

It looks like both engines are still intact. That's most likely what allowed them to get home (IANAAE), it's just a matter of adjusting the thrust to compensate for the lack of lift over that other wing.
It's a little more complicated than that. You also have to have enough roll left in the remaining aircraft to counter the increased rolling moment that is generated by the asymmetrical lift. Just imagine how lift is equally applied at roughly the centroid of each wing. Those lift vectors have indentical moment arms to the CG. When one of the wings is sheared off, the remaining lift vector must increase to carry the aircraft in level flight. Now, the remaining aileron and to a lesser extent, the rudder must be used to generate a roll moment that is opposite to the one generated by the lift vector. That's what accounted for the "crazy spin" that the pilot experienced.

He's lucky that the airplane didn't just start to spiral in with such a high roll rate that there was no way to overcome it. That's been the bane of several A-6 Intruders that became one winged aircraft after a wing separated due to undetected cracks in the main spar.

Aren't A-10 Warthogs meant to be able to fly with 90% damage or something?

Still, this is quite impressive, although not completely unexpected.
A-10's were meant to take heavy damage. they were close ground support so they were slow, not that manuerable, and tough as their name implies. :D

one lost a wing, the other exploded. guess they were more concerned about the pilot that had to bail then the plane that's flying away.

I read something where someone said the pilot was demoted for disobeying the instructor's orders... then promoted for saving the plane.

...What was your point again? I forget.

Presumably that was a bit of time after the wing was lost, right? But I don't quite understand you, what would have been a mess?

Basically, if the plane wa sin it's landing configuration like that, flying along straight and level with flaps down and brake deployed, and the wing fell off, the plane would hit the deck real fast. The plane would be a tangled mess on the ground long before the wing disappeared from the shot.

What I'm saying is, the plane would only stay straight and level for milliseconds before it went out of control, and so either 1) you'd see the plane out of control or 2) you'd see the plane flying nicely at the moment of the wing's detachment.

This is a true story.
I was stationed in Bahrain during Desert Shield/Storm as an A6 bombardier. One of the other squadrons had a plane get a wing clipped off by a guy wire on an especially tall tower. The pilot didn't even know he had problem more severe than a flight hydraulic failure until he landed. These military aircraft are capable of sustaining quite a bit of damage and still bringing the crew home.

They are able to sustain a lot of damage without the wings falling off, that why the crew are able to get home safely. The wing tip may have been clipped off but the majority of the lifting surface would have to be there still.

An F-15 fuselage is not optimised for lift. The F-15 generally is a brick, but a least the wings have some semblence of aerodynamic finesse. The plane would have a better chance if both wings were lost.

Basically, if the plane wa sin it's landing configuration like that, flying along straight and level with flaps down and brake deployed, and the wing fell off, the plane would hit the deck real fast. The plane would be a tangled mess on the ground long before the wing disappeared from the shot.

What I'm saying is, the plane would only stay straight and level for milliseconds before it went out of control, and so either 1) you'd see the plane out of control or 2) you'd see the plane flying nicely at the moment of the wing's detachment.

Well, obviously that's not when the wing came off.
http://www.trikernews.com/PDFs_&_JPGs/0904_mar06/0904_3_F15.pdf

They are able to sustain a lot of damage without the wings falling off, that why the crew are able to get home safely. The wing tip may have been clipped off but the majority of the lifting surface would have to be there still.

An F-15 fuselage is not optimised for lift. The F-15 generally is a brick, but a least the wings have some semblence of aerodynamic finesse. The plane would have a better chance if both wings were lost.
Another A-6 mishap that I investigated involved a RAG student on his first night air--air refueling mission. At the tanker, the student became a little disoriented and got the hose tangled around the tanker's horizontal stab, as well as the receiver's refueling probe. The KA-6D ended up losing the left horizontal stab and the A6-E lost the refueling probe. Both aircraft returned to base safely. I spend a couple days looking for the stab and the probe on the Salton Sea.

...What was your point again? I forget.
my original point was that it was pretty F*$king amazing that a plane, that designers said couldn't fly with one wing sheared of, stayed up in the air long enough to make it back to the airbase.

and this last post was saying there was more than just a wing falling off. it was a mid air collision, and one plane did explode, with that pilot ejecting to safety...

my original point was that it was pretty F*$king amazing that a plane, that designers said couldn't fly with one wing sheared of, stayed up in the air long enough to make it back to the airbase.

I guess that's why you don't hear about it very often.

and this last post was saying there was more than just a wing falling off. it was a mid air collision, and one plane did explode, with that pilot ejecting to safety...

Yeah, but plane exploding is ordinary. :p

Yeah, but plane exploding is ordinary. :p
After a mid-air? Yeah, probably so.

Well, obviously that's not when the wing came off.
http://www.trikernews.com/PDFs_&_JPGs/0904_mar06/0904_3_F15.pdf
Indeed. Hence, the photo and the story are fakes.

@ Les Drapeaux Brulants: Losing a stabiliser would be OK. There would be a slight rolling moment caused by the imbalance, and some sloppiness in the control but the plane would still fly safely. Losing a main wing is a different matter.

Indeed. Hence, the photo and the story are fakes.

@ Les Drapeaux Brulants: Losing a stabiliser would be OK. There would be a slight rolling moment caused by the imbalance, and some sloppiness in the control but the plane would still fly safely. Losing a main wing is a different matter.
It appears you know a little about aerodynamics, but you still have quite a bit to learn about problem solving.

It all depends on how much rolling moment you can generate to overcome the loss of lift. I'm not going to cry fake without a little analysis. I've seen too many other things happen during my 15+ years of duty on flight status. I suggest you keep an open mind, too. Those F-15s have some things going for them that would help generate more roll than just ailerons on the good wing.

The problem caused by the loss of a stab is largely longitudinal, not roll. You loose half your tail force when you lose one of the stabs.

[edit]
Now that I've said all that, the picture in Col1,Row3 is almost certainly fake. The flap on the good wing is down, that would increase the roll moment in the clockwise direction, aggravating the loss of a wing. The aircraft is also not slipped or skidded, and I'd expect some correction to be needed to overcome the loss of induced drag on the right side.

Did anyone check the date? Was it an April 1 issue?

It appears you know a little about aerodynamics, but you still have quite a bit to learn about problem solving.

It all depends on how much rolling moment you can generate to overcome the loss of lift. I'm not going to cry fake without a little analysis. I've seen too many other things happen during my 15+ years of duty on flight status. I suggest you keep an open mind, too. Those F-15s have some things going for them that would help generate more roll than just ailerons on the good wing.

The problem caused by the loss of a stab is largely longitudinal, not roll. You loose half your tail force when you lose one of the stabs.

[edit]
Now that I've said all that, the picture in Col1,Row3 is almost certainly fake. The flap on the good wing is down, that would increase the roll moment in the clockwise direction, aggravating the loss of a wing. The aircraft is also not slipped or skidded, and I'd expect some correction to be needed to overcome the loss of induced drag on the right side.

Did anyone check the date? Was it an April 1 issue?I belive the Pics in Col. 1 is all simulated to only show what it would look like, not the actual plane in question.

I belive the Pics in Col. 1 is all simulated to only show what it would look like, not the actual plane in question.
That may be true. This is a newsletter for a microlight aircraft club, after all. The pics in the second column are pretty authentic looking. Especially the two guys standing next to the plane. I've got one of those kind from an encounter with a rotten deck on the USS Lexington.

I wouldn't expect to see flaps extended because of 1) the increased rolling moment, and 2) the lack of flight hydraulics after losing that wing. We had a flap fall off after a touch and go in an A-6E. The pilot had all he could do to keep the wings level until he could reach down and move the flap handle to 0 degrees. My guess is that the pilot had a lot of rudder and slipped the plane most all of the way. Kind of like an engine failure, where you step on the bad engine to get the yaw under control, I think you would have to step on the good wing to get the roll under control.

That may be true. This is a newsletter for a microlight aircraft club, after all. The pics in the second column are pretty authentic looking. Especially the two guys standing next to the plane. I've got one of those kind from an encounter with a rotten deck on the USS Lexington.

I wouldn't expect to see flaps extended because of 1) the increased rolling moment, and 2) the lack of flight hydraulics after losing that wing. We had a flap fall off after a touch and go in an A-6E. The pilot had all he could do to keep the wings level until he could reach down and move the flap handle to 0 degrees. My guess is that the pilot had a lot of rudder and slipped the plane most all of the way. Kind of like an engine failure, where you step on the bad engine to get the yaw under control, I think you would have to step on the good wing to get the roll under control.
that and he used the engine thrust to litterally (or so it sounds to me) push the plane forward. he did state in the article that when he slowed to land, the plane started to twist and roll...

that and he used the engine thrust to litterally (or so it sounds to me) push the plane forward. he did state in the article that when he slowed to land, the plane started to twist and roll...
There is quite a moment arm to apply assymetric thrust. Far more so than on other twin engine fighters. Good pilots seem to be able to beat the odds time and time again. They just have the instincts to fly the plane, despite problems. On the other hand, all pilots think they're good enough to do that and a number of them have died trying to fly the plane out of some unrecoverable condition, right to the point of impact.

There is quite a moment arm to apply assymetric thrust. Far more so than on other twin engine fighters. Good pilots seem to be able to beat the odds time and time again. They just have the instincts to fly the plane, despite problems. On the other hand, all pilots think they're good enough to do that and a number of them have died trying to fly the plane out of some unrecoverable condition, right to the point of impact.Yep... wasn't there a Jumbo Jet that lost all hydraulic systems including redundant systems, and the pilot and Co-pilot had to steer via engine thrust?

I remember reading that a looong time ago... after they landed, one of the flight schools put the same senario in the simulators... no one survived.

Yep... wasn't there a Jumbo Jet that lost all hydraulic systems including redundant systems, and the pilot and Co-pilot had to steer via engine thrust?

I remember reading that a looong time ago... after they landed, one of the flight schools put the same senario in the simulators... no one survived.
The one I'm thinking of was AA flight 191 (I looked that up). A DC-10 lost one of the wing mounted engines, that ripped out primary and backup hydraulics, the pilots couldn't control the aircraft and it crashed, killing 270+.

There was another case where a JAL 747 captain used differential thrust to steer for a while, but I think he crashed, too.

There was a case where a jet (UAL 232) landed in a corn field after losing hydraulic power and 180+ survived the combination high speed landing and controlled impact.

So, I guess it's a mixed bag when it comes to using engines to maintain directional stability.

Yep... wasn't there a Jumbo Jet that lost all hydraulic systems including redundant systems, and the pilot and Co-pilot had to steer via engine thrust?

I remember reading that a looong time ago... after they landed, one of the flight schools put the same senario in the simulators... no one survived.
One of the problems with simulators is that they model "good" airplanes and usually as a bunch of linear models. Trying to get a bad airplane out of a simulator might be just too much for a trainer.

I've decided to invent the Missing a Wing Warning Light.

I've decided to invent the Missing a Wing Warning Light.
Damned kind of you.

Damned kind of you.
I'm a good guy that is looking to make his millions.

I'm a good guy that is looking to make his millions.
First rule about airplane parts. If you throw them up and they come back down, they weigh too much and don't belong in the airplane. That's a paraphrase of something I heard Burt Rutan say at a lecture.

First rule of airplane business. Don't do business with the Navy, even if you're starving. They don't know what they want and they'll break you trying to figure it out. That's a paraphrase of something I read by Kelly Johnson.

Other than those cautions, send me a dozen. I'll put them next to the Staples Easy Buttons.

a wing and a prayer (http://www.trikernews.com/PDFs_&_JPGs/0904_mar06/0904_3_F15.pdf)...

F-15 looses one wing during combat excercises... and the pilot flies it home.

http://kg.typepad.com/banter/images/f15.jpg

All I can say is... Damn...

Even the manufacturers, McDonald Douglas is puzzled on this one.

Wow..just wow. Kudos to manufacturing and to the pilot for bringing the plane home.

First rule about airplane parts. If you throw them up and they come back down, they weigh too much and don't belong in the airplane. That's a paraphrase of something I heard Burt Rutan say at a lecture.

First rule of airplane business. Don't do business with the Navy, even if you're starving. They don't know what they want and they'll break you trying to figure it out. That's a paraphrase of something I read by Kelly Johnson.

Other than those cautions, send me a dozen. I'll put them next to the Staples Easy Buttons.
I preferre the 'Flying Brick" theory. "even a Brick will fly if you strap a strong enough engine on it."

I preferre the 'Flying Brick" theory. "even a Brick will fly if you strap a strong enough engine on it."
That's the first rule of aerodynamics on the McDonnel Douglas Phantom production line.

That's the first rule of aerodynamics on the McDonnel Douglas Phantom production line.

I love Phantoms. Wild Weasels too.

Vestigial wings and God's own thrust.

You sure about the fifth?
I'm sure about the fifth, I've seen that same image, with the plane having both wings.

I had a friend who used to be an Avionics Maintainence Specialist in the USAF at Eglin AFB (33TFW). I visited his unit just as the techreps from McD were posting this "incident" in the big book of weird stuff. It was an IDF pilot and he overgee'd the aircraft and the wing (or airfoil) snapped off like a rotten branch on a termite infested oak tree. That was well over a decade ago going on closer to 15 years I think.

How he landed the aircraft safely is still a matter of wonder in the aviation community.

Yep... wasn't there a Jumbo Jet that lost all hydraulic systems including redundant systems, and the pilot and Co-pilot had to steer via engine thrust?

I remember reading that a looong time ago... after they landed, one of the flight schools put the same senario in the simulators... no one survived.

The words "via" and "engine" next to eachother look like vagina if you glance really quickly.

The problem caused by the loss of a stab is largely longitudinal, not roll. You loose half your tail force when you lose one of the stabs.
Maybe, that would all depend on how the surfaces were laid out and sized. My point was that losing a stabiliser, whilst significant, is as nothing comapred to losing a wing.

[edit]
Now that I've said all that, the picture in Col1,Row3 is almost certainly fake. The flap on the good wing is down, that would increase the roll moment in the clockwise direction, aggravating the loss of a wing. The aircraft is also not slipped or skidded, and I'd expect some correction to be needed to overcome the loss of induced drag on the right side.
That's pretty much what I've been saying.

My problem with this article stems from that photo, which is clearly fake. That a clear faked photograph is included screams that the rest of it is fake.

Then there is the problem with the whole "wing loss" aspect of the situation. I admit I don't have experience with military jets or the exact figures for an F-15, but I do have a master's degree in aerospace engineering. I learnt a lot of crap about partial differential equations and fourier series that may be relevent to this probelm, but the most important thing I learnt was to use common sense. Common sense says that this story may be grounded in truth (a seriously damaged wing, or one that fell off after landing or somesuch), but suggests that an aircraft with significantly sized lifting surfaces can fly with only one of them.

The incident is mentioned on Wikipedia, which links to another article. However, googling the name of the pilot doesn't bring up anything official-looking. On the other hand, a gander on the Boeing/MDD website brought up this: http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/f15/f-15k/f15ksurvive.htm

Most important part:

The F-15 has one of the best safety records in U.S. Air Force history. On those few occasions when an incident occurred, F-15s have safely landed after being hit by lightning, after withstanding a fuel-tank explosion, with destroyed tail sections and with half a wing missing.

(my emphasis)

Now, that seems much more plausible to me. The wing is badly damaged, losing half its lifting area. The plane flies along at a large angle. It comes in to land with the damaged wing down. The rest of the wing, already badly damaged, detaches. The pilot looks around for the first time... and sees no wing.

On a lighter note, LDB has probably already seen this but it's rather amusing, and somewhat relevent: http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/7739.htm

I'm sure it's possible but maybe not with the whole wing missing.

I'd just like to point out one thing.

The History channel has footage of fucking dinosaurs.

Of COURSE they have fake footage of the plane landing. This happened 23 years ago - does the 5th picture everyone's crying about even begin to resemble something captured 23 years ago? No. The last picture does. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that ONLY the last picture is genuine.

HISTORY channel, guys.

That said, it would be possible to fly with one wing simply because you can roll counter-clockwise (i.e. pushing DOWN with the good wing), and you could in theory remain stable with enough thrust. The F-15, with both engines intact, is capable of that kind of thrust - the only thing that's fishy about this article is that the pilot claims to have had no idea his wing was off. Well, he would have to have known that he had to roll left HARD to keep stable. What would that tell you?

We actually studied this incident a bit in my Performance of Aircraft class and again in my Propulsion class. The engine assembly itself produces lift (as McDD said itself) and given a sufficiently high airspeed, it can be enough to keep the aircraft flying, which is why his landing speed was twice the recommended.
And as one poster noted earlier, the F-15 follows the 'Flying Brick" theory of flight.

@Amadari
Any number of things really. Like the pilot said, he knew he was missing part of the wing, and it was a safe bet this meant any control surfaces were damaged.
There are numerous conditions (with most of the wing still attached) where one would still have to roll pretty hard to counter.

Then there is the problem with the whole "wing loss" aspect of the situation. I admit I don't have experience with military jets or the exact figures for an F-15, but I do have a master's degree in aerospace engineering. I learnt a lot of crap about partial differential equations and fourier series that may be relevent to this probelm, but the most important thing I learnt was to use common sense. Common sense says that this story may be grounded in truth (a seriously damaged wing, or one that fell off after landing or somesuch), but suggests that an aircraft with significantly sized lifting surfaces can fly with only one of them.

When I look at the planform of the F-15, I see a lot of surface that is going to provide lift. We used to call the planes "Barn Doors" because of all the surface area. When I look at the pictures in col 2, it looks like maybe a third or less of that lifting area is the wing that is alleged to have been sheared off.

Remember that the tail, in this configuration, does provide lift. So does the fuselage. I think that the lift lost by the missing wing can be overcome by increasing the AoA, reducing weight, etc. Countering the roll is going to be the biggest problem. I don't know if the F-15 has full span flaps, or whether it uses spoilers to create roll. But the tail is huge and I bet that a pilot could skid the airplane such that the horizontal stabs were countering the roll. Remember your lessons on adverse roll and yaw? Yes, I have also learned how to solve ODEs, PDEs, Navier-Stokes and I can say Kutta condition and know what it means. But, I've had several years and a couple thousand hours in which to watch all those numbers work to make a plane fly.

One thing that the col 2 pictures don't pin down for me, anyway, is that this truly was a tandem cockpit.

One other thing that I wonder about is why the instructor didn't initiate the command eject option. The way tandem cockpits are configured in Navy/Marine Corps aircraft is such that the back seat always can eject himself or both occupants. A training mission would seem to dictate that the more experienced instructor would have selected 'Both' on the command eject selector switch. Personally, I would have asked the pilot one time "Have you got it?" and if I didn't hear an affirmative answer, and right away, I'd have been gone.

I'm sure it's possible but maybe not with the whole wing missing.

It did happen. This is actually documented by McDD, USAF and the IDF. I doubt very seriously that the precise conditions could be duplicated to repeat the incident, and even if that happened, the odds will be against a successful landing.

In this case the precise conditions, luck and skillful piloting allowed something pretty rare to happen.