One winged F15 landing!!!! - no joke!

[Tomo]

 

• This is truly amazing! you won't believe it till you see it!
   
  

 

 

 

• Watch Now!
   
  

 

 

 

 

[Matt]

Great story...the "footage" of the fuel streaming out of the damaged aircraft is fake...the rest of the footage is a hotch potch of aerial footage from about 15 different aircraft...still a great story though.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes sorry guys and the one winged stunt plane was the viral ad from KillaThrill clothing which had monumental marketing success. Dial up KillaThrill on the web to find the full story of what they did and how they did it.

 

The english aero competition pilot's story is another matter and that just makes your hair stand on end.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Guys, im with Matt and turbo, looked good, but unfortunatly a fake.

 

 

[Tomo]

I realize the stunt plane one was just an advertising campaign... but this... you reckon it's made up to?

 

If it is... some people go to a lot of trouble!!

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Tomo, i havent checked out kill a thrill yet, but if he landed at 260 kts(F15), the tyres would have burst, or if not, the fuses in the wheel rims would have melted, to cool the brakes with the nitrogent(Tyres would have been flat). Even with the excellent flight computers they have, and the full flying differential elevators, ( british call them tailerons on their aircraft) .The aircraft still would not have been flyable, for any lenght of time anyway.As Matt and Turboplanner, have already mentioned, a great story but pity no real.Cheers

 

 

[slartibartfast]

The video is a recreation done by The History Channel.

 

The event is supposed to be real. Haven't found any evidence to suggest it didn't happen. The History Channel wouldn't lie.

 

The KillaThrilla one was definitely fake.

 

 

[Matt]

The event did happen...my beef is that all the footage used in the show is either faked or of completely no relevance (like showing a Super Sabre flying upside down when talking about an F15!) yet the commentary suggests that the footage is related to the event. It is actually a bit of a disappointing one from the History Channel, normally they're pretty good at these things.

 

And for those that doubt the ability of computing power to fly unstable aeroplanes, there's many stories of modern fighter aircraft making it back to base with bits of wings / tails missing due to mid-air incidents. Most of these aircraft would not be flyable without the flight control computer, so losing some part of the aircraft and becoming unstable is ops normal for the computer.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi Guys, i just looked at the footage again, if it was a training exercise, why did he actually fire of a missile (not simulated)?.Anyway i guess it doesnt realy matter fake or not, it is good entertainment.

 

 

[perthjay85]

im with slarti

 

the video was a reenactment (possibly slightly over exagerated- but then again what story that has been told hundreds of times isnt? ) of what happened or close to what happened. but i think the story wouldnt be to far off the mark, as the History channel wouldnt want to tarnish there image with a fake story.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Quick google of "F15 israeli collision A4" certainly returns enogh results to suggest the story is real, the fluff that was on the video was just turning a story that aviators might have interest in, to something for the general public to consume.... As usual bit like seafood mix, a minute amount of seafood to significant levels of mix....

 

What wasnt on the story, but which other sites report is that the IAF contact MD to determine what MD said was the possibility of flying one wing. MD responded that they, and the computer models said it couldnt be done... I dont know what to make of that.

 

Andy

 

 

[dazza 38]

SORRY GUYS, yes it is real, i just read a report from the Net, He colided with a A4 skyhawk. When he landed, the hook slowed him down to about 100 knots before the arrest hook ripped out. Hence why the tyre fuses didnt blow. (although normaly landing at that speed,(260 knots) tyre generaly burst.MD- did a aerodynamic study and said it couldnt be done, hence alot of sceptics. Until they got a photo a few days later.A F18 landed once with half a wing missing, no worries. Macdonald douglas put it down to the Flat top fuselage and the powerful horizontal stabilizers.CHEERS

 

 

[dazza 38]

Sorry Andy was typing and didnt see your response. i sourced the info from - uss-bennington.org

 

 

[turboplanner]

I've seen footage of an RC aircraft break a wing off like KillaThrill, and the guy knife edged it down to the point where they either grabbed it or let it drop to the ground, and that was probably the basis for the KillaThrill video, but it had huge power to weight ratio and was virtually flying stable on the fuse.

 

For an F15, yes there's a lot of vertical area which can be brought into play, and there's the flat shape, but you have to get rid of the much greater lift off the good wing, or maybe the wing wasn't shorn right off, but I'd find it hard to accept that the F15 was able to sit down on two wheels for a start.

 

Did MacDonnell Douglas come out later and say "Gee that's amazing, shows you how good the F15 is?"

 

 

[dazza 38]

I find it hard to accept as well, but i guess, it might be one of those exceptional things.Im a bit confused about it now, i first instinct was fake, hence my first couple of posts. Now i accept it as real.(i think)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Also, I understand what you guys are saying about the History Channel, but unless they made it clear that the footage was a cooked up sequence of many different aircraft, and missile shoot, then they already were well away from the truth.

 

 

[dazza 38]

on two wheels for a start.Did MacDonnell Douglas come out later and say "Gee that's amazing, shows you how good the F15 is?"

Probably not, well not after a F15, lost its whole nose section aft of the cockpit a year or too ago, when going supersonic, fatigue cracking the suspect. The pilot didnt like it either, when the helmet tried to rip his head off, i think he broke a few bones when he hit the airflow, anyway thats another story.(I Cannot remember if it was a E model or not with a weapons officer) Cheers

 

 

[motzartmerv]

thumb_downthumb_downMising peices is one thing, Missing a wing??...fair crack of the whip... No fuel leaks??..hydraulic oil leaks??.. No fire?? Jus hold left aileron on and she's good as gold....

 

 

[dazza 38]

thumb_downthumb_downMising peices is one thing, Missing a wing??...fair crack of the whip... No fuel leaks??..hydraulic oil leaks??.. No fire?? Jus hold left aileron on and she's good as gold....

Hi merv, that is why i am confused mate, i have heard of fighters flying with half a wing missing, generaly not a problem because their flight computers will put inputs into their horiztonal stabilizers with out the pilot even knowing. We had a F111 come back, with half a right stabilzer and the honey comb leading edge complely missing from the fin about (two feet in depth up to the fin tank, the whole lenght of the fin bottom top top).A major part of the RH over wing fairing broke off in flight. The aircrew felt a sudder, but she flew normaly, they didnt know until they landed.(although not as dangerous of loosing a wing though) Cheers:big_grin:

 

 

[Tomo]

It is true, and it did really happen to an F 15 on May 1 1983, over the Negev desert.

 

The video was made by the history channel. All the moving pictures are 'reconstructions' of some kind, but there are authentic still photos of the F15 after landing, at the end of the clip

 

The video is from a reconstruction made by the History channel. You can see how they have whited out the missing wing in the reconstruction. What aircraft they used, I don't know; but some of the still photos at the very end are of the original aircraft. The video sequences are exciting, but could be using anything as far as I know

 

So there you go.... incredible job to the pilot I say.

 

More info at -

 

DUAE QUARTUNCIAE

 

 

[Tomo]

On 1 May 1983, during an Israeli Air Force training dogfight, an F-15D collided with an A-4 Skyhawk. Unknown to pilot Zivi Nedivi and his copilot, the right wing of the Eagle was sheared off roughly two feet (60 cm) from the fuselage. The F-15 entered a spin after the collision. Zivi decided to attempt recovery and engaged afterburner to increase speed, allowing him to regain control of the aircraft. The pilot was able to prevent stalling and maintain control because of the lift generated by the large horizontal surface area of the fuselage, the stabilators and remaining wing areas. The F-15 landed at twice the normal speed to maintain the necessary lift, and its tailhook was torn off completely during the landing. Zivi managed to bring his F-15 to a complete stop approximately 20 ft (6 m) from the end of the runway. He was later quoted as saying "(I) probably would have ejected if I knew what had happened." The fuel leak and vapors along the wing had prevented him from seeing what had happened to the wing itself.[73][74]

 

F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

[dazza 38]

Im still confused

 

 

[dazza 38]

Apparenty the pilot, was demoted, because his rear seat was his instructor, and didnt eject went told too. He was then re-promoted because he saved the aircraft.ps- either aircrew can iniate a ejection sequence. The rear seat goes first then a split second later the front.(reason being, so the rear seater doesnt get burnted by the rocket motor from the front seat). In most cases with dual aircrew, the navigator or RIO or who ever is in the back, is majority of the time the one who pull the handel.Reason is, the pilot is to busy trying to save the aircraft, instead of getting out of their and sometimes they leave it to late. I have added this because, i dont know why, the rear seater was his instructor, why didnt he just pull the handle?. They both would have gone.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tomo, your first post appears to come just from someone who saw what we saw and posted it.

 

The second post from Wikidedia quotes two sources:

 

1. Crew stories from USS Bennington

 

2. A circular reference to the Youtube video we all saw

 

So we haven't managed to source the original data yet to verify it is or isn't true.

 

To me there are a few telling issues:

 

The Pilot knew the other guy was coming up - and he knew there was a vision problem - why didn't he take evasive action?

 

The wing man couldn't see there was no wing because of the fuel spray - why didn't he just pull ahead slightly and take a better look, or hang around once the aircraft was in stable flight?

 

When they were on the ground the wing man told the pilot he had no wing. Why not tell him in the air, so the two could bail out?

 

The collision damage appears to me to include some compression - maybe a deck collision?

 

The aircraft is sitting on the ground, the RH gear is undamaged - I'm not familiar where it retracts to, but if it's into the wing area, we know the story's fake

 

Just recently Airbus announced they had come up with computers with enough capacity to fly an aircraft with the tail sheared off.

 

But that was 2009.

 

The F15 first flew in 1972 when the internet didn't exist, emails didn't exist, PC's didn't exist and maybe even the Fax didn't exist (in general use)

 

It would have been some computer to fly that plane.

 

So here's an exercise for you budding designers. How about calculating the surface area of one wing, stabilators, vertical stabilisers/rudders, fuselage and two feet of right wing and see what the wing loading would be in stable flight at 250 - 260 kts.

 

Assume that either the computer or the pilot neutralised the excess LH Wing lift

 

Calculate the LH drag vs no wing drag on the right and see if the rudders could overcome the yaw force, and how the roll effect from that would be neutralised

 

We know the aircraft is heavy

 

We know US Carriers use 7G as the landing thump for test purposes

 

And we know the RH gear is undamaged to the landing had to be within performance forces for each side

 

Is there enough lift to allow a control combination to get the aircraft in stable flight?

 

Then in stable landing approach?

 

 

[Spin]

This one is pretty well documented and been discussed on all the major aviation forums. Consensus is that yes, large parts of the video are recreated, but the incident occurred pretty much as reported. An aviation writer by name of Peter Garrison did a fairly technical article for Flying magazine - the US publication, which has been reprinted in several others. I'm trying to dig out a copy of the text and will post. (If you don't hear from me, the stacks of old mags fell on me!)