HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2089 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4461 times:
I was reading thru some USAF Accident Investigative Board (AIB) reports and ran across a bit of info I wasn't aware of.
An F-16C crashed at Balad Air Base, Iraq after landing. The left main tire blew and despite the very valiant efforts of the pilot, eventually departed the runway resulting in over 7 million dollars in damage, the pilot was fine. The revelation to me happened as I was reading the official findings of the board, which stated in part, and I quote: "Maintenance personals failure to accurately track the number of landings resulted in the MLG tires being used for landings that were in excess of the prescribed maximum (22 landings on tires restricted to 20 landings).
Unless they just meant that there were only 20 landings left on the tire at last inspection or something, I'm guessing that fighter tires have a much lower life expectancy than I would have thought. I realize you have a lot of weight coming in at high speeds but that number still surprised me. Anybody who can shed some more light on this?
HaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2089 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4437 times:
Quoting Powerslide (Reply 1): Can't speak for the F-16's, but our 18's tires last much longer than 20 landings. There are no maximum number of landings before replacement, if its worn down beyond tread limits, it gets replaced.
That's what I would have thought, and that makes sense. Apparently this F-16 was using tires that were landing-limited so I guess the question now is.. why?