F-16 crash. Update (4/19) with video of crash site

[FoxFour]

Talk about design flaw. Back in the 50's there was a plane called the F-7U Cutless

Cool looking plane, fantastic roll rate even in today's standards but when it suffered an engine flame-out the hydraulic systems would shut down. The hydraulic systems are what controlled the control surfaces. Yes, it did have a mechanical back-up but it took several seconds for it to engage. Imagine driving your supercar flat out around a road course and here comes a sharp bend, your doing over 100 and have the car set up to take the corner. Suddenly, your electronic steering goes out. Not to worry, the back-up system will engage in a few seconds..
The plane did not last very long in the Navy inventory. Hydraulic system was a mantainance nightmare.

[FoxFour]

Here is an aerial fly-by video of the crash site. That noise you hear is the ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) being transmitted by the wrecked '16.
rtsp://mgs.mgbg.com/wcbd/video/Apr05/crash_flyby_041805.rm

[ZfrkS62]

:shock: holy crap. thank fully the pilots got out of the plane in time. not much of a chance of surviving any other way

[Toronto]

well good to here everyone is all right, but the plane
wow.... what a waste of money
I hope you enjoy paying the bill on this on (US tax payers)

[gobs3z]

I consider it an amazing plane expecially for the money, but i wouldn't be caught dead flying a single engine fighter jet just for the sake that if your engine goes out the plane has very little gliding capability which gives you horrible time to react to a free fall, but thats what trained pilots are ready for, but their are also a lot of hot-dogging idiot pilots that make horrible mistakes. I love the plane, but servicing has gotten worse in the air force over seas since parts aren't as available as they should be and mechanics aren't as available either. You'll see plenty of fighter aircraft on the tarmac that can't fly just because they're waiting to be serviced and there isn't enough mechanics or parts to get them up in the air at a good rate.

[CSedl87]

Man, down by where I used to live (about 40 minutes from where I live now), there was an AF base there. An F-16 would crash just about everyother weekend... Since I've moved they have stopped training flights out of there and moved them more like 3hrs from where I live (aka to Tucson).

[nthfinity]

I consider it an amazing plane expecially for the money, but i wouldn't be caught dead flying a single engine fighter jet just for the sake that if your engine goes out the plane has very little gliding capability which gives you horrible time to react to a free fall, but thats what trained pilots are ready for, but their are also a lot of hot-dogging idiot pilots that make horrible mistakes

single engine is far from a design flaw, and inherently is more reliable itself then two engines.

having more then 1 engine forces pilots to compensate at high risk to their own safety upon failure. when one turbine stops, the other is rotating at high velocity in the opposing direction, and has very low stability. where a single engine has built in compensation.

speeds/altitudes/ attitudes in case an engine goes out. ask any pilot... jet/ prop if they prefer single engine to multi engine, a single engine is easier to take down safely... where a multi engine may** be able to bring the plane back.

bah~ modern computers fly it acurately anyway, with one or two engines

[gobs3z]

having more then 1 engine forces pilots to compensate at high risk to their own safety upon failure. when one turbine stops, the other is rotating at high velocity in the opposing direction, and has very low stability. where a single engine has built in compensation. speeds/altitudes/ attitudes in case an engine goes out. ask any pilot... jet/ prop if they prefer single engine to multi engine, a single engine is easier to take down safely... where a multi engine may** be able to bring the plane back.

A design flaw was a bad way to put it but i understand the inertia created by having an engine go out one side and not the other, but if you look at modern day fighter jets(dispite the flybywire), the engines are in the tale and rear and right down the center next to each other, F-15 F-18 etc.., this means the compensation for having a flame-out is not very difficult, and i'm positive any pilot you ask they'll say they would rather have a multi-engine aircraft over a single aircraft for the sake that there is still lift. This is why they test air planes today with multi engines to have the ability to fly with an engine shut, or 2 engine shut down(747). Look at B-17 pilots of WWII, half the pilots that came home love the fact that there plane has four engines since the likelyhood of 2 of the engines failing was very high. You're at a higher risk(for a trained pilot) to have an engine go out on single engine aircraft than a multiengined aircraft just for the sake that the only direction the single engine aircraft has is down, pilots should be able to fly an multi engined airplane with a loss of an engine, thats the only way to get multiengined ceritfication.

[RC45]

^^^ non-aviators are the ones scared of single engine planes.

Having grown up around aircraft, logged more hours by the time I was 10 than most civilians fly in a lifetime (business travellers excluded.. ) I am rather astonished by the urban legend nature of your post...

Fighters, stunt planes and other high-po recreational aircraft are designed and build around different criteria than commercial airliners..

[saadie]

did the pilots survive ...... and how do you know its a compressor stall ..... dont trust the media ... especially when it comes to millitary stuff

[FoxFour]

I would love to get into this discussion , but I just woke up and might not be coherent enough to put anything into words to make sense. I will respond later.
Here are some more vid clips from the local news.
rtsp://mgs.mgbg.com/wcbd/video/Apr05/crash_andy_041805.rm
rtsp://mgs.mgbg.com/wcbd/video/Apr05/crash_bettina_041805.rm
And saadie, the compressor stall thing is just a wild guess. It could be most anthing that could have gone wrong.

[gobs3z]

Originally Posted by RC45 ^^^ non-aviators are the ones scared of single engine planes. Having grown up around aircraft, logged more hours by the time I was 10 than most civilians fly in a lifetime (business travellers excluded.. ) I am rather astonished by the urban legend nature of your post... Fighters, stunt planes and other high-po recreational aircraft are designed and build around different criteria than commercial airliners..

I never said i was scared, single engine aircraft can have a certain performance and save a lot on gas compared to multi engined aircraft, they are very reliable when it comes to prop planes. It's not an urban legend that it's better to have to ability to stay in the air on one engine(dual engined) than no engine. Single engine aircraft are cheaper to make, cheaper to maintain, lighter, and cheaper in fuel up. I've flown Cherokee's and Warriors and felt very secure without worrying about engine failure because those aircraft have the ability to glid to the ground with time to spare, as for an F-16, it has horrible lift thats why most engine flame outs end up with a crash without a safe landing thats not even near an air field. I'm not putting down single engined aircraft, i just would chose an F-15 or an F-16 for the main concern on having that extra engine(and yes i realize it out performs the F-16, but thats not the point either).

[nthfinity]

gobs3z, the reason any single engine plane is ineffiabley more reliable is it has fewer remaining parts... do you feel safer knowing that its a higher likelyhood that one of your engines will fail?

why do pilots prefer the harrier jump-jet to the modern joint strike fighter?? fewer moving parts, less chance of failure. would it suprise you to know that the harrier only has one engine?

now, you want to speak about aircarft engine reliabiltiy... the SR-71 never once had an engine failure of course, there arent any moving parts in its engine either

[gobs3z]

Originally Posted by nthfinity gobs3z, the reason any single engine plane is ineffiabley more reliable is it has fewer remaining parts... do you feel safer knowing that its a higher likelyhood that one of your engines will fail? why do pilots prefer the harrier jump-jet to the modern joint strike fighter?? fewer moving parts, less chance of failure. would it suprise you to know that the harrier only has one engine? now, you want to speak about aircarft engine reliabiltiy... the SR-71 never once had an engine failure of course, there arent any moving parts in its engine either

Pilots don't prefer a harrier jet, i know it has a single engine but exhaust consumption at low altitudes has happened many times and caused the engine to choke, it also has a horrible heat distinguisher which means it's a sitting duck to any heat guided missiles. And the new JSF was, IMO, a bad choice since the boeing plane worked like the harrier with a single engine and without that extra turbine that the lockheed had which runs off the engine with a crank(way to many parts), but thats a single engined aircraft not a dual engine. The boeing lost cause it looked like fat duck . Dual engine aircrafts like the F-15 don't have higher likelyhood of a flameout since it has two engines, it's just about the same as an F-16. It's two indentical engines and each engine has the same amount of parts as the single engined F-16, it's just there's two of them. One flames out, one still runs an you still have the ability to fly.

[FoxFour]

Hmm, much to say. First off, in a combat environment I personally would love to have a combat aircraft with two engines. Redundancy and all that. The safety record of the Harrier has not been all that great through the years, mainly due to the fact that most crashes have occurred during the transition period from vertical take-off to regular fixed wing flight and vice versa. The Marine Corps has strict requirements for people that are allowed to train in the Harrier.
Now, to general aviation aircraft. According to the NTSB, general aviation aircraft that incorporate single-engines are safer. The crash statistics confirm it. The majority of crashes are due to pilot error and twin-engine aircraft are more accident prone, mainly in the take off and landing phases. More so during takeoff because the aircraft has many things stacked up against them, low airspeed (flight controls are slow to respond) high angle of attack, P-factor from the propeller(s), spiral prop wash and the rotational torque from the engine(s) as well as heavy fuel loads during takeoff.
When flying a twin, you have to be at the top of your game when something goes wrong. Like instrument flying, you can't become rusty or when a problem arises the chance of something fatal to happen goes way up.