F15's can fly with one wing??

[Mental Trousers]

I know the wing loading of an F15 is low but this is insane. wtf?? (http://www.strangevehicles.com/content/item/115494.html)

[Lias]

Thats some crazy shit

[limbimtimwim]

I remember seeing footage of an American fighter that lost most of its wing, maybe that one, flying. The computers just... compensated. I imagine the software designers considered complete loss of control over all the surfaces on a particular wing (SAM exploding nearby or electro/mechanical failure). But loosing a whole wing...!

Understandable that those pilots are smiling.

[James Deuce]

F15's get a big chunk of their lift budget from the fuselage, and remember that every F15 except the E model has a positive thrust to weight ratio.

[Maha]

Maverick ! when i said ''take my wing'' i didn't mean take my wing you arshole...........

[Mental Trousers]

F15's get a big chunk of their lift budget from the fuselage, and remember that every F15 except the E model has a positive thrust to weight ratio.


Yeah but still, to see one actually keep flying without 1 of it's wings just seems wrong.

[James Deuce]

Yeah but still, to see one actually keep flying without 1 of it's wings just seems wrong.

Lifting body technology has been around since the '30s. The test mules for the Shuttle programme, like the one the 6 Million Dollar Man crashed also generated data used in the development of the current generation fighter/bomber aircraft capable of carrying huge loads like the F15 & 18. The F15's wings are for generating longitudinal roll 1st, carrying stuff 2nd, and lift 3rd. There was (don't think it is still in service) a flight of F15C's that were used as an ASAT (anti satellite) platform and climbed vertically standing on their tail to 60,000ft to begin the launch process. All the lift is coming from the thrust provided by those big after burning engines, while the flight surfaces are used for directional control.

If an F16's triple redundant flight control computer stops working you're outta there, because you can't fly the aircraft without it's input. I imagine the F15 has a similar amount of digital correction to it's flight attitude.

Thunderbird 2 is probably the best example of the advantages of a lifting body design. Thunderbird 2's "wings" are just there to hold the ailerons and flaps.

[limbimtimwim]

Thunderbird 2 is probably the best example of the advantages of a lifting body design. Thunderbird 2's "wings" are just there to hold the ailerons and flaps.Jim, mate, Thunderbird 2 isn't real..

But these are!

Take note of the 'lifting body' a-10 in the 3rd picture.

[limbimtimwim]

And this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=21518&d=1134109043) is real too. Just to make it bike related. Oh my, look at the time.

[James Deuce]

Jim, mate, Thunderbird 2 isn't real..



Whaaaaaat? But I can hear International Rescue talking to and from Thunderbird 5, through that filling I got when I was 7.

Nooooooo, they're real, real I tell you!

[paturoa]

says 2 jets survive, looks like only one in the pics

[Scouse]

As a Pilot myself I would have to say that the F15 on the ground would have sufferd that damage during a ground handling incedent there is no way that anyone could successfully land a plane with one wing missing even with computer aided fly by wire it would just spirail down uncontrolaby to the ground the only way the Pilot could save himself in that situation is to pull the ejector handle

[Scouse]

Jim, mate, Thunderbird 2 isn't real..

But these are!

Take note of the 'lifting body' a-10 in the 3rd picture.One word Photoshop

[James Deuce]

As a Pilot myself I would have to say that the F15 on the ground would have sufferd that damage during a ground handling incedent there is no way that anyone could successfully land a plane with one wing missing even with computer aided fly by wire it would just spirail down uncontrolaby to the ground the only way the Pilot could save himself in that situation is to pull the ejector handle

That incident is verified and documented. They're actually Israeli aircraft and the other aircraft invovled was an A4 (Skyhawk) and the pilot ejected from the A4.

[Macktheknife]

As a Pilot myself I would have to say that the F15 on the ground would have sufferd that damage during a ground handling incedent there is no way that anyone could successfully land a plane with one wing missing it would just spirail down uncontrolaby to the ground the only way the Pilot could save himself in that situation is to pull the ejector handle
Sorry mate in this case you are wrong, I have read the pilots statement following the crash investigation, he knew the wing was damaged from the impact but as the wing is not visible from the pilots seat he had no idea how bad it was until after he had landed. At which time he said if he had known he would have ejected because, 'everyone knows that a plane can't fly on one wing.'
That is one lucky SOB.

[James Deuce]

One word Photoshop

Clueless.

Sigh. *Waits for the vicious rebuttal for daring to point out that someone missed the joke.*

[Scouse]

Clueless.

Sigh. *Waits for the vicious rebuttal for daring to point out that someone missed the joke.*Hey your only alowed to take the piss on the first of April and even then only up to Midday

[James Deuce]

I've put that in my diary.

Somebody's going to get a hurt! Somebody!

[Lias]

One word Photoshop
The worlds "www.somethingawful.com" are the give away here..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Something_Awful
See Photoshop Phriday

[Marmoot]

Notice the left and right jet funnel size is different to compensate.

[R6_kid]

Notice the left and right jet funnel size is different to compensate.

most people call it an exhaust nozzle, but ok....

Hmmm sceptical, but i'd believe it.

I too have seen pictures of the two F-18's that had a mid air collision and managed to come back safely. I think in that situation one lost the canopy and half of the wing, the other lost one vertical stabiliser (tail) and one elevator.

[Marmoot]

I'd call it Exhaust pipes.................

Yes I'd believe it too.

Afterall, even experts said F117 wouldn't fly when the aircraft was first introduced.
And when TV was first made, there was a saying "this product wouldn't sell"

[Pixie]

Or flaming thrust holey things

[Pixie]

And when TV was first made, there was a saying "this product wouldn't sell"
They said that about the parametric discombobuliser too

[Marmoot]

They said that about the parametric discombobuliser too
Bull.....that thing is a guaranteed sale.
I've ordered mine but hasn't arrived yet. Only $1.50 each

[sAsLEX]

YOU USED THE f16 as an example Jim but by far the most reliant on computers to fly are the flying wing style B2 bombers etc, without vertical stabilisers they would be impossible for a non savant human to fly!

[Marmoot]

Yeah? well i've seen some mad wifes getting plates and saucers to FLY to their husbands. Now, those things don't have any vertical stabilizers nor computers, you know..........

[R6_kid]

YOU USED THE f16 as an example Jim but by far the most reliant on computers to fly are the flying wing style B2 bombers etc, without vertical stabilisers they would be impossible for a non savant human to fly!

Check out these two babies...

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-009-DFRC.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html

The X-31 is my favourite, has directional thrust control - you can basically drift the plane, OR say if you were pulling up to get a lock but the guy was climbing to fast you simply tilt the exhaust nozzle up and it flicks the nose of your aircraft up even faster. Pretty cool to play with, albeit in a computer game :nya:

[terbang]

YOU USED THE f16 as an example Jim but by far the most reliant on computers to fly are the flying wing style B2 bombers etc, without vertical stabilisers they would be impossible for a non savant human to fly!

Hah then you havnt tried an Auster yet..
The Airtourer also derived a reasonable percentage of its lift from the canopy area as well. Designed by the Aussies and also built in NZ well before F16 or F15.

[limbimtimwim]

YOU USED THE f16 as an example Jim but by far the most reliant on computers to fly are the flying wing style B2 bombers etc, without vertical stabilisers they would be impossible for a non savant human to fly!The Eurofighter would be up there. Just looking at it makes you think 'dynamically unstable'. A flying wing can fly without computers. Those clever Germans did in in WW2. Remember that crazy plane from Indiana Jones? But the real one had jet engines!

[R6_kid]

The Eurofighter is so dependant on computers that the 'simulator' runs the same software, and is equivalent to approx 99% of flying the real thing. So technically after you can fly it in the simulator you can fly it in real life, of course parliamentarians wouldnt like that so they have two seaters for the old school way aswell.

[sAsLEX]

The X-31 is my favourite, has directional thrust control - you can basically drift the plane, OR say if you were pulling up to get a lock but the guy was climbing to fast you simply tilt the exhaust nozzle up and it flicks the nose of your aircraft up even faster. Pretty cool to play with, albeit in a computer game :nya:

Read some of Dale Browns Novels. The UCAV's (Wolverine i think he calls it) he talks about in there utilise thrust vectoring along with the ability to change the shape of the fuselage, which acts as a lifting body, through the use of hydraulics to modify the surface shape, this gives them crazy manueveurabilty. Think the hydraulic skin is used in a few of the planes in those novels, and I wonder how far from reality they are?!

The problem these days is humans, drop them out of the equation and you dont have to worry about support systems, canopys and all that junk. Just fuel airframe and weapons, then the true ability of thrust vectoring can be explored, we are just too soft and pink on the inside to handle the jandle these days.