Flaws may ground older F15's indefinitely

Washington Post via MSNBC ^ | December 22 2007 | Josh White

[SampleMan]

Well, I don't think the Russians are purchasing much of anything that they are producing these days, or for that matter since 1991. That goes for their aircraft, their missile systems, their submarines, etc. They inherited a giant legacy military and no money from Soviet times, so they parked everything. Despite all of their huff and bluff and recent cash infusion, I think the Russians are feeling quite secure and don't feel there is any real threat for them to react to.

The issue for the USAF is how to keep up numbers. Even though more F-22s will likely be built, there won't be enough of them. They might have a 15-1 kill ratio against Flankers, but they can't be in 15 places at once. The JSF will be a filler, but the USAF might benefit from having a more affordable utiltiy fighter-attack aircraft in the mix. The

[skeptoid]

> . . .. she's blown!

This pic explains the unique exhausts. . ..and I like the chute for those stoplite runs. . ..

[Eye of Unk]

This Douglas AD-6 Skyraider is another American naval aircraft which entered service just after the war ended. Like the Bearcat, both remained in service for a long time and saw considerable action in Vietnam - I even have a photo of a Skyraider captured at the end of that war and incorporated into the communist air force! The Skyraider was certainly a remarkable aircraft, capable of carrying twice the weight of bombs of the early model B-17 Flying Fortresses based at Midway at the time of the Japanese attack. It's even more extraordinary to consider that it could do this with a single engine and single crewman, in contrast to the B-17's four engines and ten crewmen! This particular aircraft is one of the best on the airshow circuit, complete with a simulated bomb and rocket load and a pilot who is ready, willing and able to throw this large aircraft around in one of the most high energy performances you'll see anywhere. The large panel sticking out of the bottom of the Skyraider is a dive brake, which was deployed several times, together with the tail hook.
Personally for the conflicts we have seen like in Iraq it would appear that just a basic aircraft such as this but with modern systems like chaff, flares etc. it would be a potent factor, 1,000 of these would be a lot cheaper than a couple of F-22's.

[VOA]

But to get back to the F-15s A-D, their air frames are just wore out
after 30 years of high G flying...

I had History Channel's "Dogfights" on in the background last
week; it was on F-15 action in Gulf War I.

IIRC, one pilot recalled doing a 12-G turn in his F-15 (C model,
I think).

That just sounds brutal. Even as a non-aviator, never-served civilian,
I'd guess you could stress a plane like that only so many times
until something snaps.

[Eye of Unk]

USS BENNINGTON CREW'S STORIES RETURN TO: CREW STORIES NO WING F15 Subject: F-15 Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 09:01:17 EDT From: JEasley198@aol.com To: Interesting story andpicture. Jon Easley Unbelievable! But DON'T look at the picture until you read the story below! Read the article, then look at the picture. A simulated dogfight training took place between two F-15D's and four A-4N Skyhawks over the skies of the Negev, Israel. The F-15D #957, (nicknamed 'Markia Shchakim', 5 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 fire ball 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 my wing, and I understood it was badly damaged. The aircraft flew without control in a strange spiral. I reconnected the electric control to the control surfaces, and slowly gained control of 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...)." My instructor pilot 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 lower 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 10 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. Special thanks to Tsahi Ben Ami. This is what "Flight international" wrote about the incident: "The most outstanding Eagle save was by a pilot from a foreign Air Force". During air combat training his two-seater F-15 was involved in a mid air collision with an A-4 Skyhawk. The A-4 crashed, and the Eagle lost its right wing from about 2 ft. outboard. After some confusion between the instructor who said eject, and the student who outranked his instructor and said no, the F-15 was landed at it's desert base. Touching down at 290 knots, the hook was dropped for an approach end engagement. This slowed the F-15 to 100 knots, when the hook weak link sheared, and the aircraft was then braked conventionally. It is said that the student was later demoted for disobeying his instructor, then promoted for saving the aircraft. 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". No Wing F15 RETURN TO: CREW STORIES Site Created By: LPWE LOGO

[VOA]

The Skyraider was certainly a remarkable aircraft, capable of
carrying twice the weight of bombs of the early model B-17 Flying Fortresses...

I got to see a Skyraider at this year's "Salute to Veterans"
Memorial Day airshow at Columbia, MO.
I'd heard that payload figure mentioned before...but it was still
a bit suprising to see that the Skyraider was (to my inexpert eyes)
not much different in size from the B-25 Mitchell on the flight line.

Another thing...the Skyraider was some sort of variant...
I think it actually has a side-by-side seat by the pilot
(for a co-pilot? passenger?) and even a back seat.

It's a darned big and impressive single-engine prop.

[VOA]

The aforementioned Skyraider I saw is at this URL:

http://www.salute.org/Aircraft.shtm

Just scroll down for the fifth plane

[VOA]

It is said that the student was later demoted for disobeying his
instructor, then promoted for saving the aircraft.

Not many aviators with that in their service record, I suspect!

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".

Reminds me of that old story about aeronautical engineers
proving that a bumblebee by all physical laws "can't fly".
Only they didn't get around to informing the bumblebee.

[Eye of Unk]

Looks like a single seat on this one.

[Eye of Unk]

I wonder if the vaulted F-22 would even be able to fly if the same thing happens.

[Eye of Unk]

Three of the worlds best aircraft, these should be treated the same as the B-52 and kept in our inventory, I would like to actually see a rebuild of the P51 with some modern firepower, that aircraft had a remarkable war record and so few are left.

[VOA]

“Looks like a single seat on this one.”

Agreed. And all the photos or documentary footage I’ve seen of Skyraiders...
all single seat.

Then, my mind got expanded when seeing the variant on Memorial Day 2007.
Most likely it’s a REALLY rare bird.

[pfflier]

F-22’s are for more sophisticated foes.

We underestimated the sophistication of the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese, the Vietnamese and the Russians. We've paid in blood each time.

There is nothing wrong with a 30 year old design simply because it is 30 years old... We all know about the B-52.

The H models are the "youngest" 8% of the 744 (all models)produced and their time began in 1962 or later. Their flight profile is waaay-waaay different than that of the F-15. Many of the H's spent their early time on pad alert and not in the air, a luxury F-15s never enjoyed. Airframe time is independent of chronological age.

ACM frequently exposes the wing of the F-15 to 7,8 or 9 constant Gs while the "G ride" in the B-52 is induced as a transient by low or high altitude turbulence but little by manuvering. Even then, they have been reskinned (BTW no spar) because of metal fatigue. "Younger" designs such as the C-5 are being retired despite rewinging.

Cheap options aren't always the best options. As a taxpayer, given a choice between defense or social welfare, I say we have more F-22s and less incentives not to work.

I hope you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and best wishes for the New Year!

[60Gunner]

If you are racing a ferrari against a ford, yes you will win.

It depends on the Ford. For example, the GT40 kicked Ferrari's ass.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

When your old car starts breaking down, and costing you more in repairs than it would, to buy a new replacement. Then it’s time to:

Buy a new one.

The new car is invariably superior, more dependable, and costs less once it’s paid for...

[RFEngineer]

“It depends on the Ford. For example, the GT40 kicked Ferrari’s ass.”

I already had my serving of crow for that improper analogy!

[FlyVet]

A civilian co-worker of mine was a PMEL lab chief in Nam. I gathered it was an extremely demanding job. He was a very smart and dedicated guy.

We hear a lot about gov't workers being slugs, but the ones I worked with were often some of the hardest workers in the unit. Uncle Sam really got his money's worth out of them.

[SampleMan]

I’d like to see a fly-off between a modernized AD-6 and an Apache helicopter.

[60Gunner]

That’s okay, friend. I understood the spirit of the analogy. Ford was also responsible for the Pinto. Ferrari never built a Pinto. Nuff said.