3 ms·
Everything about the incident is surreal. Neither student nor instructor could tell the wing was missing until they landed because a fuel leak obscured their vi
by tomcam 4y ago
Everything about the incident is surreal. Neither student nor instructor could tell the wing was missing until they landed because a fuel leak obscured their view. The instructor told the student, who outranked him, to eject. The student refused. They had to fly almost twice as fast as usual to remain stable when landing. The plane manufacturer didn’t believe the incident until in-flight photos were produced.
And the plane was so sturdy they just stuck another wing on it and put it back in service.
Update: /u/rmason did a better summary while I was writing mine but I refuse to delete due to sunk cost fallacy—thumb pain incurred while typing
- alexvoda 4y agoThey treated the plane like a rocket. Maybe the F-15 can land vertically too.
- stavros 4y agoIsn't that what these planes basically are? They aren't very aerodynamic so they can maneuver quickly, so they need tons of thrust to stay aloft. I heard one described as "a brick with a jet engine strapped to it".
- _0ffh 4y agoI think in the RC flying community there's a saying like "Anything can fly, with enough thrust". Safely landing, otoh, now that's a feat!
- stavros 4y agoRockets are a testament to the truth of that :P
- jlkuester7 4y agoApparently no one told that to Elon.... It may have been German mad-scientists who pioneered sending rockets to space, but I think you actually have to be more crazy to think you can bring them back down again and land them in one piece! (Not that it has stopped Musk from doing just that...)
- stavros 4y agoI'm fairly sure someone did, as his rockets do have enough thrust to fly.
- eesmith 4y agohttps://curious-droid.com/1107/vertical-landing-rockets-before-spacex/ https://curious-droid.com/1107/vertical-landing-rockets-befo... > You may well be forgiven for thinking that rockets which take off vertically and then land again vertically were a recent development by the likes of Blue Origin and SpaceX but a quick look back the history of rocketry and you’ll see that this technique is far from new and was first used nearly 60 years ago ... > The image of rockets landing vertically on their tail fins has been popularised in Science fiction since buck Rodgers in the early 1930’s, though it took nearly 30 years to bring the technology to a point where it could be used practically ... > The first instance of a rocket-powered vertical take off and vertical landing was shown in 1961 with the Bell Rocket belt. ... > But within a few years there would be a rocket-powered vertical take off and vertical landing vehicle that would be a total success and be seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world. > That vehicle was the Apollo lunar lander, a design that was used in the most inhospitable place man had even been to and worked without fail on six separate missions. ... > It wasn’t until the mid 1990’s that the first true vertical take-off and vertical landing rocket was seen in the form of the McDonnell Douglas Delta Clipper Experimental or DC-X. Video of the DC-X from 1995, launching and landing, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv9n9Casp1o .
- palata 4y agoTechnically Musk paid people to do it. Pretty sure he doesn't know how it works.
- tonyarkles 4y ago“If lift plus thrust is greater than load plus drag, anything will fly!” When I was a kid, my father attributed the phrase to a short-lived TV show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Nun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Nun
- zokier 4y agoI feel that moniker is more appropriate for the previous generation of supersonic fighters that generally had fairly small stubby wings. This was exemplified by jets like F-104 or MiG-21 which according to wikipedia had wing areas of 18 and 23 m² respectively. In comparison F-15 has fairly generous 56m² wing area
- jskrablin 4y agoThat is usually referring to F-4 Phantom. F-15 is using something called a lifting body design in which fuselage itself produces lift. That's what save this one. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifting_body
- jlkuester7 4y ago+1 to this. The aerodynamic lift from the F-15 wings/body also increases its maneuverability as well since the pilot will roll the plane into the turn.
- GekkePrutser 4y agoIsn't rolling into a turn what every plane does? I was told the rudder is more for support to reach proper turn coordination. Some airliners don't even use rudder during cruise to avoid upsetting passengers in the rear.
- avereveard 4y agoIt does have >1 thrust to weight, but aereodinamic control surface aren't efficient enough to keep control at low speed
- lloeki 4y agoI had to reread the landing approach speed twice. 260 knots ~ 300 mph. Thats 480 km/h. Not a pilot, although I've flown propeller planes and landed a couple of times. I've driven cars just shy of 280 km/h (on a mostly clear autobahn). Those spec'ed 130 knots seem approachable (with training). But doing approach + touchdown at 480 km/h with controllable aircraft is already stretching my imagination, doing it while keeping attitude of an unbalanced brick under control is absolutely bonkers.
- Maursault 4y ago> Everything about the incident is surreal. I'm a little disappointed that we know hardly anything about this incident except the surreal parts. What specific events lead to the collision? What happened to the Skyhawk and its pilot?[1] Was there an investigation, and if so, what were its findings? I guess I've been spoiled by publicized NTSB investigations. [1] The pilot of the Skyhawk was automatically ejected and his aircraft disintegrated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision