Thread: F-15 Strike Eagle Mechanical Failure

Originally Posted by surfgun

Greg Williams of NBC news reported that the F-15E is an "older fighter" aircraft. I guess that numb-nut has no idea it is one of the newer F-15's in inventory. The guy made it sound like a Delta Dart!

It always amazes me how clueless the mainstream media is towards military equipment. I mean I don't expect the national anchor to know what a Strike Eagle is, but they must have some fact-checker employed who can provide a reasonable explaination for things such as this. I always thought it would be a sweet job to be the military knowledge expert for a media outlet, but with all the miscues they make, perhaps that job doesn't exist.

Even the defense correspondents are often clueless about equipment as they focus more on the politics/policies in the military. Watching CNN last Saturday I chuckled a few times as the anchors tried to explain what a Tomahawk or Rafeal was.

Well, technically the Strike Eagle is as old as a Block 30 F-16C or a F/A-18C. Meaning its contemporaries are on the verge of being retired. Who's still flying Block 30s in the US? A handful ANG units pretty much?

Originally Posted by JA Boomer

It always amazes me how clueless the mainstream media is towards military equipment. I mean I don't expect the national anchor to know what a Strike Eagle is, but they must have some fact-checker employed who can provide a reasonable explaination for things such as this. I always thought it would be a sweet job to be the military knowledge expert for a media outlet, but with all the miscues they make, perhaps that job doesn't exist.

Even the defense correspondents are often clueless about equipment as they focus more on the politics/policies in the military. Watching CNN last Saturday I chuckled a few times as the anchors tried to explain what a Tomahawk or Rafeal was.

Yeah, older, as in it's been flying around for, what, 20 years now? Should we mention the "older" F-15A airframes that have been around for 35+ years now? Should we even mention the fact that the E will probably be still flying 20 years from now, since we can't buy any new airframes? If they want to whine about "older fighters", then give us some money to buy "newer fighters"!

Originally Posted by Stitch

Yeah, older, as in it's been flying around for, what, 20 years now? Should we mention the "older" F-15A airframes that have been around for 35+ years now? Should we even mention the fact that the E will probably be still flying 20 years from now, since we can't buy any new airframes? If they want to whine about "older fighters", then give us some money to buy "newer fighters"!

With what information was obtainable from ABC's morning newshow, I concluded an engine failure (?????) due to ______________.

Has anyone got better information.

Originally Posted by blidgepump

With what information was obtainable from ABC's morning newshow, I concluded an engine failure (?????) due to ______________.

Has anyone got better information.

As Chogy pointed out in another thread, it is VERY unusual for a twin-engined aircraft to go down due to engine (singular) failure; you would probably have to lose BOTH engines in short order to elect to punch out. The only situation I can see where an "engine failure" would be a problem is either because it's a.) on fire, or b.) it threw a blade (or two or three), and disabled the other engine (very rare).

Originally Posted by Stitch

As Chogy pointed out in another thread, it is VERY unusual for a twin-engined aircraft to go down due to engine (singular) failure; you would probably have to lose BOTH engines in short order to elect to punch out. The only situation I can see where an "engine failure" would be a problem is either because it's a.) on fire, or b.) it threw a blade (or two or three), and disabled the other engine (very rare).

If one engine had thrown some turbine blades, is there a chance they did some damage to the aircraft beyond the engine involved? I was imagining thrown blades from one engine damaging the other one? Is this possible?

The engineers design twin-engined fighters with catastrophic failure (blade shedding) in mind, and the structure which separates the engine bays, while not like tank armor, normally will isolate the damage. Of course it is entirely possible for a severe failure to start a fire, and that is the most likely cause of a loss.

Everything else on the airplane has triple or better redundancy. And in the F-15, there was no bold-face or memory items, unless that has changed... the only memory item for "catastrophic engine failure on takeoff" is "climb and investigate." Single-engine flight is a big yawn, there's nothing to it.

The most famous catastrophic failure recovery was the Israeli Eagle that had a midair in 1983. It's probably been posted already, but worth another look...

Originally Posted by Chogy

The engineers design twin-engined fighters with catastrophic failure (blade shedding) in mind, and the structure which separates the engine bays, while not like tank armor, normally will isolate the damage. Of course it is entirely possible for a severe failure to start a fire, and that is the most likely cause of a loss.

Everything else on the airplane has triple or better redundancy. And in the F-15, there was no bold-face or memory items, unless that has changed... the only memory item for "catastrophic engine failure on takeoff" is "climb and investigate." Single-engine flight is a big yawn, there's nothing to it.

The most famous catastrophic failure recovery was the Israeli Eagle that had a midair in 1983. It's probably been posted already, but worth another look...

Chogy - IIRC, the pilot was able to maintain controlled flight due to the aerodynamic lifting properties of the fuselage and the intake structure, and differential deflection of the tail surfaces; sound about right?

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".

There are unconfirmed rumors that the pilot was immediately demoted in rank for disobeying the order to punch out, and then promoted for landing the plane.

Originally Posted by Stitch

Chogy - IIRC, the pilot was able to maintain controlled flight due to the aerodynamic lifting properties of the fuselage and the intake structure, and differential deflection of the tail surfaces; sound about right?

Correct - contrary to Bernoulli and what is taught in high school, using the classic Clark-Y airfoil, the bulk of the lift comes from thrust + angle of attack, and the fuselage area adds significantly to overall lift.

I've had so many debates on this topic (Bernoulli vs. AOA), and it always comes down to this: "If Bernoulli explains it all, then how does an airplane with a fully symmetric airfoil fly so well?"