NationStates Jolt Archive

This is some cool video taken from inside the cockpit of the F-16. If you look closely you'll see the bird just prior to impact while the aircraft is taking off. The instructor pilot in the back seat then takes control of the aircraft while the student pilot tries twice to restart the engine. The pilot flying is heading the aircraft toward an empty field, you hear "eject, eject, eject" then the aircraft impacts the field.

F-16 = 1, Bird =1 = Tie

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/?action=view&current=a90e2452.flv

Hmmm I had guessed but did not know for sure that you were Celtlund

Anyways interesting video

Hmmm I had guessed but did not know for sure that you were Celtlund

Anyways interesting video

I know, it was the sig that gave me away. :p

I know, it was the sig that gave me away. :p

Nope look at the bottom of the video page :)

so thats what happened to big bird :p

Wow. There goes $20 million. Score one for nature. Yikes.

This is some cool video taken from inside the cockpit of the F-16. If you look closely you'll see the bird just prior to impact while the aircraft is taking off. The instructor pilot in the back seat then takes control of the aircraft while the student pilot tries twice to restart the engine. The pilot flying is heading the aircraft toward an empty field, you hear "eject, eject, eject" then the aircraft impacts the field.

F-16 = 1, Bird =1 = Tie

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/?action=view&current=a90e2452.flv

A tie? How much did the bird cost?

This is some cool video taken from inside the cockpit of the F-16. If you look closely you'll see the bird just prior to impact while the aircraft is taking off. The instructor pilot in the back seat then takes control of the aircraft while the student pilot tries twice to restart the engine. The pilot flying is heading the aircraft toward an empty field, you hear "eject, eject, eject" then the aircraft impacts the field.

F-16 = 1, Bird =1 = Tie

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v287/Celtlund/?action=view&current=a90e2452.flv

Ouch.

Also, you were supposed to have left. :mad:

I thought they built engines sturdier than that. Oh well, lowest bidder and all.

I thought they built engines sturdier than that. Oh well, lowest bidder and all.

They do build the engines very sturdy. However, when you take a large bird and impact it at a few hundred miles per hour against titanium blades rotating at several thousand rpm, the results are catastrophic.

I thought they built engines sturdier than that. Oh well, lowest bidder and all.

turbine vanes are inhierently suseptable. building engines sturdier then that, i'm sure the military and commercial carriers alike would wish they could be.

when i was in the air force 30 years ago, bird strikes were responsible for many times the damage of enimy fire. somehow i doubt this has chainged much.

better and stronger materials, yes, all the time, but (mass*velocity)+impact still invariably = damage of some sort. and probably always will. (and it doesn't take that much mass when combined velocities are sufficient!)

=^^=
.../\...

They do build the engines very sturdy. However, when you take a large bird and impact it at a few hundred miles per hour against titanium blades rotating at several thousand rpm, the results are catastrophic.

I seem to remember Boeing testing commercial engines by launching large turkey carcasses into them while they were running full tilt. The birds were pulverized, but the engines turned out fine.

I don't see that happening here.

Birds have been nailing aircraft sinceforever.

Hell it was a plot device in at least 3 Biggles stories. Smack one into the fuselage at high speed and it'll make a pretty hefty mess forget what it can do to mechanisms inside.

I seem to remember Boeing testing commercial engines by launching large turkey carcasses into them while they were running full tilt. The birds were pulverized, but the engines turned out fine.

I don't see that happening here.

I think a commercial jet engine would be much larger than an f-16 engine, judging from the airshows I've been to. :p

I think a commercial jet engine would be much larger than an f-16 engine, judging from the airshows I've been to. :p

Turkeys are a heck lot bigger than that bird judging by the silhouette. Still, you'd think they'd make them tougher than civilian models.

Turkeys are a heck lot bigger than that bird judging by the silhouette. Still, you'd think they'd make them tougher than civilian models.

I'm not sure we have the materials to make something that small that sturdy. But I'm sure they've tried. I remember standing about a foot away from a military jet, and they're really not that big, it was kind of surprising to me at the time. If nothing else, maybe they could design the f-16 to withstand losing the engine - at least a 737 can lose one and still function well, I believe.

Turkeys are a heck lot bigger than that bird judging by the silhouette. Still, you'd think they'd make them tougher than civilian models.

There are a lot of things competing for a designer's attention in an aircraft. A small fighter like the F-16 only exaggerates the problem. I suspect a "bird-proof" engine could be put into fighters, but the penalties in performance would be too great.

And the pre-eminent version to make the civil aircraft more survivable has to do mostly with the seating plan. A fighter pilot has a very expensive seat that will remove him from harm's way very quickly. Commercial crew and passengers have cheap seat that only features some extra padding and a tilt-down tray.

I'm kind of surprised that the pilot spent so much time on attempting to restart the engine. Must be allowed, because the Air Force is big on procedures. In A-6's we had to eject immediately for any dual engine failure below 10,000 feet. No restart attempts allowed.

I'm not sure we have the materials to make something that small that sturdy. But I'm sure they've tried. I remember standing about a foot away from a military jet, and they're really not that big, it was kind of surprising to me at the time. If nothing else, maybe they could design the f-16 to withstand losing the engine - at least a 737 can lose one and still function well, I believe.
Thrust is very important for maintaining level flight. I don't think an F-16 could withstand the loss of a single engine without some very dire consequences.

There are a lot of things competing for a designer's attention in an aircraft. A small fighter like the F-16 only exaggerates the problem. I suspect a "bird-proof" engine could be put into fighters, but the penalties in performance would be too great.

And the pre-eminent version to make the civil aircraft more survivable has to do mostly with the seating plan. A fighter pilot has a very expensive seat that will remove him from harm's way very quickly. Commercial crew and passengers have cheap seat that only features some extra padding and a tilt-down tray.

I'm kind of surprised that the pilot spent so much time on attempting to restart the engine. Must be allowed, because the Air Force is big on procedures. In A-6's we had to eject immediately for any dual engine failure below 10,000 feet. No restart attempts allowed.

Isn't there a significant risk when ejecting, though? Maybe they crunched the numbers and found that trying to restart made sense in terms of the pilot's odds. One of my old gym teachers (of all people) was a former fighter pilot, and I remember him saying that ejecting was pretty dangerous - it was the reason he had to retire, in fact: shattered leg, or close to it. :p

Thrust is very important for maintaining level flight. I don't think an F-16 could withstand the loss of a single engine without some very dire consequences.

Ah, that makes sense.

I seem to remember Boeing testing commercial engines by launching large turkey carcasses into them while they were running full tilt. The birds were pulverized, but the engines turned out fine.

I don't see that happening here.

When large birds such as buzzards or geese or several smaller birds are ingested into a jet engine, the engine usually suffers catastrophic failure. All the bird has to do is chip or break one small portion of a fan blade. That blade will in turn destroy another bade, etc. The engine "shells out." In other words, all the compressor and turbine blades are destroyed.

I guarantee you, if turkey carcasses are launched into a jet engine, even a large one found on 747 aircraft the results will most likely be engine failure.

Thrust is very important for maintaining level flight. I don't think an F-16 could withstand the loss of a single engine without some very dire consequences.

Well, when you have only one engine and that engine stops it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the results will be. :rolleyes:

Well, when you have only one engine and that engine stops it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the results will be. :rolleyes:

The video makes it look like the bird's hitting low and to the left, though, to be fair. Not everyone's intimately familiar with fighter jet design. ;)

There is a reason I'm not real fond of single engine jet fighters. This is exactly why the Navy rejected the idea of going with the F-16 for its light weight fighter. The result was the YF-17 being adapted into the F/A-18 Hornet.

Isn't there a significant risk when ejecting, though? Maybe they crunched the numbers and found that trying to restart made sense in terms of the pilot's odds. One of my old gym teachers (of all people) was a former fighter pilot, and I remember him saying that ejecting was pretty dangerous - it was the reason he had to retire, in fact: shattered leg, or close to it. :p

New (1970s +) ejections seats are light years ahead of what was available in the '50s and '60s. I know a number of folks that have survived ejections, only to be back on the flight schedule the next day. I think the big difference in the F-16 is that it may have a glide ratio better than 1:1. For an A-6 to maintain the KIAS it needed to have an airstart, the nose down attitude would have been unacceptable below 10K.

The video makes it look like the bird's hitting low and to the left, though, to be fair. Not everyone's intimately familiar with fighter jet design. ;)

OK, for those not familiar with the F-16, low and a little left is directly into the intake. Here
http://www.avonds.com/F-16-WR-10.JPG

The video makes it look like the bird's hitting low and to the left, though, to be fair. Not everyone's intimately familiar with fighter jet design. ;)

One thing you'll see experienced pilots do is to force a yaw away from the bird. That protects them from a bird hitting a windscreen and in the case of a single engine plane, it might cause the bird to impact part of the fuselage instead of the engine.

We were flying around North Carolina and had a turkey buzzard hit us. The pilot did yaw the plane to the left and the bird hit the right side of the canopy. Right where I was sitting. The plexiglass side panel absorbed most of the force, but I was wearing buzzard guts for the next hour or so, until I could get cleaned up.

I guarantee you, if turkey carcasses are launched into a jet engine, even a large one found on 747 aircraft the results will most likely be engine failure.

*shrug* I saw the demonstrator videos.

One of my old gym teachers (of all people) was a former fighter pilot, and I remember him saying that ejecting was pretty dangerous - it was the reason he had to retire, in fact: shattered leg, or close to it. :p

So because is injury prevented him from piloting a plane from a sitting position, he is now teaching gym, interesting :p

Seriously, I did know bird where a problem on airfield. But seeing a F-16 lost like this put some relativity in the fact.

That was a true instructor with that pilot. He was calm about the situation while the trainee you could tell was getting scared/nervous. One thing that I thought while watching that video is that the pilot was damn lucky that bird was not up a bit higher and hit his canopy directly on. He could have been easily killed.

That was a true instructor with that pilot. He was calm about the situation while the trainee you could tell was getting scared/nervous. One thing that I thought while watching that video is that the pilot was damn lucky that bird was not up a bit higher and hit his canopy directly on. He could have been easily killed.

When they built the F-16 the tested the canopy by firing chicken carcases out of a cannon directly at the canopy to test the design. When hit the canopy looked like jello. However, a larger bird hitting the canopy could have gone through it.

When they built the F-16 the tested the canopy by firing chicken carcases out of a cannon directly at the canopy to test the design. When hit the canopy looked like jello. However, a larger bird hitting the canopy could have gone through it.

For some reason, birds always seem to tuck and dive when they get near an aircraft. Usually, you can see the bird a little farther away, too, and pull the nose up. This bird really did look like it came outta nowhere.

Myrm, you flew in the Intruder. Way cool. We used to have the EA-6B Prowlers based near my former home. Whidbey Island NAS. Lotsa people favor the "sexier" F series, but the A-6 and A-10s are my favorites. Much respect.

Myrm, you flew in the Intruder. Way cool. We used to have the EA-6B Prowlers based near my former home. Whidbey Island NAS. Lotsa people favor the "sexier" F series, but the A-6 and A-10s are my favorites. Much respect.

I respectfully disagree. The three best military aircraft ever made are the B-52, KC-135, and the KC-10 and just because I worked on the BUFF and the 135 for over 20 years and the 10 for more than 5 years in no way makes me prejudice. :D

I respectfully disagree. The three best military aircraft ever made are the B-52, KC-135, and the KC-10 and just because I worked on the BUFF and the 135 for over 20 years and the 10 for more than 5 years in no way makes me prejudice. :D

You respectfully disagree that the A-6 and A-10 are my favorites? Has it gotten that odd in here? Until they make a Top Gun for the tankers and Stratofortress, I'll stick with my assertion of the popularity of the fighters. I don't agree with it, but you can't deny it, either, no matter what you worked on.

It's wasn't an f-16. It was a NATO Hawk.

I thought I heard accented English.

It's wasn't an f-16. It was a NATO Hawk.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/Fti/CT155202_e.asp (http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs/docs/Fti/CT155202_e.asp)

Myrm, you flew in the Intruder. Way cool. We used to have the EA-6B Prowlers based near my former home. Whidbey Island NAS. Lotsa people favor the "sexier" F series, but the A-6 and A-10s are my favorites. Much respect.

I was instructing in the West Coast training squadron, VA-128, for a few years back in the late '80s. Seems so long ago, doesn't it?

We had a house on the hill above the middle school. The street was W 325th then, and I think it was renamed to 13th, or something. The neighborhood was called Carlton Heights.

And Celt, buddy, you'll never find a bigger fan of tankers. Especially the KC-10s. The -135s were a little hard to tank off of because the drogue they fitted for the Navy aircraft was on a stiff piece of hose with no response. But the KC-10s had the whole hose package -- response and everything. They were a pleasure to see show up.

I was instructing in the West Coast training squadron, VA-128, for a few years back in the late '80s. Seems so long ago, doesn't it?

If you think that was a long time ago, I was working on B-47s and KC-97s before and during the Cuban Crisis. :eek:

They were a pleasure to see show up.

And the 10s were much better to ride on. The 135 guys call us the Guchi Boys and we called the 135's steamjets. :p

If you think that was a long time ago, I was working on B-47s and KC-97s before and during the Cuban Crisis. :eek:

Cool. Thank both of you for your service.

And the 10s were much better to ride on. The 135 guys call us the Guchi Boys and we called the 135's steamjets. :p

I love the terminology intra-service rivalries produce. My father was yellow-shirt on the USS Wasp, a sub-hunting baby carrier. He told me that surface ship people used to call submariners "bubbleheads", while the submariners had a far more laconic and succint name for surface ship sailors: "targets".

He told me that surface ship people used to call submariners "bubbleheads", while the submariners had a far more laconic and succint name for surface ship sailors: "targets".

Before joining the Air Force, I spent 15 months in the Navy Reserves as a "bubblehead" assigned to Sub Division 1-8, USNRTC in Boston.

Cool video.

I very much doubt I'd be able to remain that calm in such a situation.

Cool video.

I very much doubt I'd be able to remain that calm in such a situation.

I doubt I'd remain dry or un-shit-stained in that situation.

If you think that was a long time ago, I was working on B-47s and KC-97s before and during the Cuban Crisis. :eek:


Damn, thought I was an old vet on here. I think you win the award.

Edit: Also want to point out that the A-10 is my favorite too. It is a thing of beauty in action.

I doubt I'd remain dry or un-shit-stained in that situation.
Most guys I know of in that sort of situation just fall back on training. We do endless Emergency Procedure drills, quizzes, etc. That sort of makes the emergency seem a little less unanticipated.

It'd be worth a few drinks in the Club afterward, though.

So because is injury prevented him from piloting a plane from a sitting position, he is now teaching gym, interesting :p


He looked to be in his late 40s/early 50s (I think), so he may have completed the necessary number of years required for retired military benefits behind a desk - it's possible but I'm not sure. His scars looked kinda fresh, so I just assumed he was injured in the recent past, but that was a long time ago, so I couldn't say for certain. ;)

I thought I heard accented English.

I was going to say something, but I thought it was just my mind playing tricks. :p Especially since the onboard computer voice sounded British, and I think the f-16 is manufactured here. :p Though I guess since it's sold to many countries, the voice would naturallu vary.