Fightingfalcon From Switzerland, joined Feb 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1 Posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3118 times:
It seems like the crash rate of the USAF, and especialy of the F-16 is really worse than these of the most other nations air forces although I heard it's getting better.
Everybody heard of this two F-15's crashed in Scottland this spring, and now, again, happened two crashes:
- A F-16D of 416th FTW crashed July 17 near Edwards AFB killing both men aboard. It was conducting photo and safety chase support for a separate F-16's test mission.
- A F-16CJ (I guess CJ, it wasn't mentioned) of 31st FW, Aviano AB, Italy, crashed July 18 in Turkey, this time the pilot ejected savely.
Is the crash rate of the USAF worse then these of the other big AF's (like RAF)?
If yes, why? Because of the aircrafts? Or the pilots?
I don't think that these are the reasons, but what else?
Someone knows more about that?
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (11 years 10 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2948 times:
you gotta remember the usaf has more fighters than alot of other nations out there. and we report our losses, unlike some other nations. so the amount of crashes will be higher. add to that the fact that the f-16 (the fighter in more numbers than any other with the usaf) is single engine and has a ground attack mission that puts it in some very risky territory, ie, nvg low level sorties. older aircraft, etc, the loss rate is gonna go up. and not to sound heartless, but planes will always crash in training, and if none do, the pilots are probably not getting the kind of realistic training that they should be getting.
Fightingfalcon From Switzerland, joined Feb 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2935 times:
It turned out that the rate of the F-16 is very good, indeed.
Do the other AF's really not report their accidents?
The only one I heard of was a Tornade of the German AF which crashed in New Mexico some months ago.
Totaly another question, I don't want to start a new topic just for that:
I just took a look at some of my aircraft pictures and realized that the Swiss Hornets have got landing hooks for carrier landings. Why do they need them, the Swiss Hornets will never land on a carrier.
And BTW, are there any Hornets without landing hooks in the world?
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2929 times:
The F-16 crashed recently in Turkey was indeed an American F16 belonged to Incirlik AFB and was coming from a mission to enforce north Iraq free from Iraqi military.
The USAF might seem to have high ratio of losses but the total number of the F16 s flying in the Usaf more than any other nations airforce.
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1552 posts, RR: 25 Reply 6, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2930 times:
By the way the arresting hooks are not only used to land on aircraft carriers.Most of the military fighters has the hooks since their landing speeds are fast.Some use parachutes after landing to slow down because you can't use brakes at those high speeds.And the hook is the last alternative instead of going out of runway if the plane has a problem with parachute,brakes or the hydrolics.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (11 years 10 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
piggybacking on what wing said, most airfields that have fighters stationed there or have alot of transient ones come in have what's essentially an arresting wire on it's runways. i don't know the specifics since i've never used one (i think my plane's too big, and we got no hook) but basically if a fighter declares an emergency for whatever reason, if he has to he can deploy his tailhook and when he rolls over the wire, his hook will catch it (hopefully). i know the f-16's got a hook, and i'm pretty sure the -15's got one too.
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (11 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 2917 times:
Remember back in the early 80s the crashes involving certain blocks of F-16A/B models that was probably caused by wire chafing? The wife of an Air Force pilot who was killed in Korea flying an F-16A took the company that built the F-16 General Dynamics to court. The Air Force blamed the pilot for the crash, but the wife through some research discovered some documents and a videotape about a hidden problem with the F-16A/B that was wire chafing? She won her case and her husband cleared, but because the company was under a government contract she could not collect any damages. There was a movie about the story called AFTERBURN.
Duce50boom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (11 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 2902 times:
yep, i saw it. cool movie. that really sucked though how she couldn't recieve the damages. but at least she took on gen. dynamics and won. anyone know what kind of problems the AF was having with the f-110 in the f-16 in the past year or 2? i know they were having a bunch of them drop like flies. or like i know somebody's gonna say 'a lawndart'
TEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (11 years 10 months 3 hours ago) and read 2899 times:
From what I have read there have been many crashes involving the F-16C & D models powered by the GE F110 engine. I believe the problem have been linked to the compressor or fan blades. So far the most reliable engine has been the P&W F100-229 equipped on certain blocks of F-16C & D models along with the F-15E Strike Eagle.
Spectre From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2001, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2888 times:
If I remember right, most of the F-104 crashes happened in the European theatre. The thoughts at the time (of guy's talking in the bar ) were that these could have been caused by pilots being trained in much warmer climates (Arizona?) and then them not being able to handle the climate change over here. Any pilots out there who can comment on this. Does climate conditions make such a difference?
Fightingfalcon From Switzerland, joined Feb 2001, 787 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (11 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2881 times:
Thanks for the five stars!!
searched the internet a little bit:
The F-104 crashes are often caused by engine problems (like the F-16's) with the J79-GE-7s - forty serious mishaps occurred over a five-year period, destroying 24 aircraft and killing 9 pilots. But the F-104 had one more problem: it had pitch-up problems, it frequently stalled at low-speed.
To the number of crashed F-104, one site said 370, but I think that's a fault, another site said 110, what's more realistic, I think.
The F-16 has still real engine problems, of the 11 crashed in 2001 (without July23), are 3 still under investigation, 3 were mid-airs, one was NVG training, and 4 were engine failures.
2000 crashed 2 'cause of engine problems, 1999 there were 8 times engine failure crashes. 1999 crashed 18 F-16 what was I believe the worst year for the Viper.
Whistler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (11 years 9 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2852 times:
This is one of the reasons Canada chose the F/A-18 instead of the F-16. The Netherlands has lost something like 30 F-16s since they bought them. Canada bought a similar number of 18s around the same time and we have lost maybe 1 or 2.
One thing that is interesting is that the US has lost more F-16s due to mechanical problems than there were ever total Migs in the Yugoslav airforce .