An Israeli F-15 landed without a wing (2020)(taskandpurpose.com)
taskandpurpose.com
An Israeli F-15 landed without a wing (2020)
https://taskandpurpose.com/tech-tactics/1983-negev-mid-air-collision/
55 comments
They treated the plane like a rocket.
Maybe the F-15 can land vertically too.
Maybe the F-15 can land vertically too.
It does have >1 thrust to weight, but aereodinamic control surface aren't efficient enough to keep control at low speed
Isn'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".
I heard one described as "a brick with a jet engine strapped to it".
That 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
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
+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.
Isn'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.
Some airliners don't even use rudder during cruise to avoid upsetting passengers in the rear.
I 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!
Safely landing, otoh, now that's a feat!
“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
When I was a kid, my father attributed the phrase to a short-lived TV show: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flying_Nun
Rockets are a testament to the truth of that :P
Apparently 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...)
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...)
Technically Musk paid people to do it. Pretty sure he doesn't know how it works.
I'm fairly sure someone did, as his rockets do have enough thrust to fly.
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 .
> 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 .
I 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
I 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.
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.
> 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
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
The pilot and crew were ordered to eject. Instead he tells his commander he thinks he can land the plane. He then gave the crew the option to eject but they elected to stay with him. But he made this decision without really knowing the extent of the damage until he landed. He said upon seeing the damage that maybe we should have ejected!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khkghaz5RqA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khkghaz5RqA
When I was a senior at CMU in '88, a group of us went on a plant trip to the McDonnell Douglas factory in St. Louis where they built the F-15. I've previously posted on HN about how cool are plant trips and that engineers should take every advantage. Well, this factory visit was as cool as they get. Some highlights that I remember that related to the article about the Israeli incident.
1. This plane was machined out of blocks of titanium. 80% of the material is machined away. I asked the guide if it's collected and reused. He said "no". Their optimization for performance didn't really have to consider cost.
2. Seeing the "testing" was a mind-blow that I can still see in my mind 35 years later. They had an aircraft in a test harness and grabbed the tips of both wings in massive hydraulic presses, and bent that wing up and down by a couple meters. My brain was like “that’s impossible – they should snap off”.
3. “Avoid FOD” signs everywhere - "Foreign Object Damage". I learned many new acronyms that day.
1. This plane was machined out of blocks of titanium. 80% of the material is machined away. I asked the guide if it's collected and reused. He said "no". Their optimization for performance didn't really have to consider cost.
2. Seeing the "testing" was a mind-blow that I can still see in my mind 35 years later. They had an aircraft in a test harness and grabbed the tips of both wings in massive hydraulic presses, and bent that wing up and down by a couple meters. My brain was like “that’s impossible – they should snap off”.
3. “Avoid FOD” signs everywhere - "Foreign Object Damage". I learned many new acronyms that day.
An F-35 read this headline in the hangar and blew up.
The F15 is in the most optimized solution in tradeoffs in fighter jets.
If you take into account the time to market, cost of development, fighting record it's the the unicorn-sweetspot :)
a Very under rated(I couldn't bring myself to say under the radar, Im not that type of person) plane !
If you take into account the time to market, cost of development, fighting record it's the the unicorn-sweetspot :)
a Very under rated(I couldn't bring myself to say under the radar, Im not that type of person) plane !
How in the world is this possible:
"In a testament to just how incredibly tough these aircraft really are, the damaged F-15 was transported to a maintenance facility in Tel Nof, where it was given a new wing and returned to service."
Am I reading this correctly? Events were something like: So you rip a wing off a plane in a mid-air collision but you can safely assume that it did not suffer fundamental structural damage, so you can just stick a wing back on it and it is good to go?
"In a testament to just how incredibly tough these aircraft really are, the damaged F-15 was transported to a maintenance facility in Tel Nof, where it was given a new wing and returned to service."
Am I reading this correctly? Events were something like: So you rip a wing off a plane in a mid-air collision but you can safely assume that it did not suffer fundamental structural damage, so you can just stick a wing back on it and it is good to go?
Yes, aircraft are designed to be transportable and repairable so the wings and other control surfaces are easily removable.
The wings on an F-16 for example are secured by two bolts all you need is to disconnect the avionics remove the bolts and the wing comes off.
You can replace a wing on an F-16 within under half an hour without skipping any steps it is like changing tires on a car.
The wings on an F-16 for example are secured by two bolts all you need is to disconnect the avionics remove the bolts and the wing comes off.
You can replace a wing on an F-16 within under half an hour without skipping any steps it is like changing tires on a car.
I hope that the techs give an extra tug on the wrench "just to be sure" when they are tightening those two bolts back on like I do when putting the lug nuts back on my car wheel...
This is a common misconception. Once you hit the rated torque you NEVER do an "extra click" or anything else. That increases the applied torque beyond rated, and can (has) had disastrous consequences by weakening the bolts and/or the material the bolts are seated against.
Source: career Naval Aviation Maintainer, QA on F/A-18's and H-60's, etc.
Source: career Naval Aviation Maintainer, QA on F/A-18's and H-60's, etc.
I was a bit incorrect on the total number of bolts it’s two bolts per strut and there are 8 struts in total.
https://media.defense.gov/2013/Nov/27/2000892775/-1/-1/0/131...
“…each wing possesses 16 wing attach bolts.”
https://media.defense.gov/2013/Nov/27/2000892775/-1/-1/0/131...
“…each wing possesses 16 wing attach bolts.”
They are undoubtedly using a torque wrench, and so should you. Opinions differ one whether to use anti-seize compound:
https://www.rtsauto.com/should-you-put-anti-seize-on-your-lu...
https://www.rtsauto.com/should-you-put-anti-seize-on-your-lu...
They have a hydraulic jig that does everything the bolts need to be torqued to 600 foot-pounds you aren’t getting that done with hand tools.
We do 600+ foot-pounds by hand on H-60's. It's not fun but it doesn't require a hydraulic jig. It requires a specific (long) wrench and a guy who can brace. If you can deadlift 200lbs you could do it.
The jig is likely to speed up the process and prevent fatigue; doing that torque 16 times per wing would get exhausting.
The jig is likely to speed up the process and prevent fatigue; doing that torque 16 times per wing would get exhausting.
[deleted]
"Easily" by the way does not mean clip one in in 5 minutes :)
These things need like 15 hours of maintenance for every flight hour (and this is regular flying with no parts coming off)
I have no experience with military planes but I think in this case "easily" means more like "possible in a few months of work". I suppose when an airframe costs hundreds of millions it takes a lot to make it a write-off.
These things need like 15 hours of maintenance for every flight hour (and this is regular flying with no parts coming off)
I have no experience with military planes but I think in this case "easily" means more like "possible in a few months of work". I suppose when an airframe costs hundreds of millions it takes a lot to make it a write-off.
> you can safely assume that it did not suffer fundamental structural damage
I don’t know where you are getting that they assumed anything. Most likely they carefully checked every part of the airplane.
I don’t know where you are getting that they assumed anything. Most likely they carefully checked every part of the airplane.
What's so hard about this? It's sounds like they only had half as much plane to land, so it was probably even easier than usual.
Onwards to management! :D
Onwards to management! :D
As you can see planes can fly with one wing.
Maybe we can cut down some costs and only use one wing in the future?
Maybe we can cut down some costs and only use one wing in the future?
MBA Grad :)
Planes are designed to fly with both wings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7ULyt20bkY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7ULyt20bkY
Without the wing and the fuel, it was probably like flying a blimp.
Lighter weight, almost flew itself!
Some of the best pilots in the world. Pretty amazing stuff.
So the pilot seriously risked their life to save the government a few million $.
Due to the fuel leaking they couldn't see how much of the wing was missing, they only found out after landing the plane.
Not every one is out to get you ! Namaste :p
Ejecting is very risky for the pilot. Many pilots are seriously injured in the process (1 in 3 chance of spinal injury https://www.smh.com.au/education/how-dangerous-is-it-to-ejec...). Ejection is the option of last resort; I'm guessing the pilot felt that he wasn't quite that desperate yet.
Operators of vehicles like boats or airplanes are much more likely to try and save the vehicle with all means necessary. This is probably due to a number of reasons but there is a somewhat increased attachment.
Car people love their cars yes, but boat people and pilots treat their vehicle like a child. No idea why.
Car people love their cars yes, but boat people and pilots treat their vehicle like a child. No idea why.
Nope. Israel in the 80s was not a wealthy country and didn't have jets to spare. He guessed the correct motivation.
Will any of the flight simulation games allow you to try out this scenario?
DCS allows for something similar.
https://youtu.be/BV8kMeyFp7g
Id put that front and center on the brochure ! Pic of.plane landing with one wing ! Sure its not the norm ! But dammit which other fighter jet has an event like this :)
No news on what happened to the pilot in the A-4N...
According to the wiki page [0], the plane was destroyed but the pilot ejected and survived.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision
Better title: Ziv Nedivi landed an F-15 without a wing
Plane didn't land itself.
Plane didn't land itself.
[deleted]
In English, the title is perfectly fine. It just says the plane landed, not how it was landed.
The title is correct, and while the pilot does deserve recognition for the impressive feat, the article is primarily about the plane, not the pilot, so changing the focus of the title from the plane to the pilot is not appropriate in this instance.
The subtitle is terrible though: it mentions "he" (the pilot), but doesn't say who "he" is. So for the subtitle to make sense, the pilot's name should be in the title. Perhaps it was originally written with the pilot's name, but was changed by an editor for the reason listed above.
The title is correct, and while the pilot does deserve recognition for the impressive feat, the article is primarily about the plane, not the pilot, so changing the focus of the title from the plane to the pilot is not appropriate in this instance.
The subtitle is terrible though: it mentions "he" (the pilot), but doesn't say who "he" is. So for the subtitle to make sense, the pilot's name should be in the title. Perhaps it was originally written with the pilot's name, but was changed by an editor for the reason listed above.
Neat, now they can sell cheaper single wing planes. Value for money !
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