Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/14/2016 11:17:44 PM EST
http://m.gazette.com/cause-released-of-air-force-thunderbird-crash-near-colorado-springs/article/1592305

Read the article for all of the information.

The June crash of an Air Force Thunderbird jet in Colorado Springs is being blamed on a throttle malfunction, according to an accident investigation report released to The Gazette on Wednesday.

The June 2 crash of the F-16 fighter in a field just south of the Colorado Springs Airport destroyed the $29 million plane, but the pilot safely ejected.

According to Air Combat Command, a malfunctioning throttle allowed the pilot to accidentally turn off the plane, causing the crash.

An accident board cited maintenance practices for the crash and called on the Air Force to improve maintenance manuals for the jet to address the throttle issue.
Link Posted: 12/14/2016 11:26:23 PM EST
Wowza
I saw the jet a few times down near Fountain. Interesting scene
Link Posted: 12/14/2016 11:34:29 PM EST
Balls... that pilot has them.

Dead-stick and falling out of the sky, and he stayed with it to keep it from lawn darting into apartment buildings.
Punched out at a 'lower than recommended altitude' as a result.

I don't know how much those guys are paid, but it ain't enough
Link Posted: 12/14/2016 11:55:59 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ch3no2:
Balls... that pilot has them.

Dead-stick and falling out of the sky, and he stayed with it to keep it from lawn darting into apartment buildings.
Punched out at a 'lower than recommended altitude' as a result.

I don't know how much those guys are paid, but it ain't enough
View Quote


Yup. The pilot's an absolute hero.  And yet it isn't an isolated case - there are a number of similar stories where the pilot steered a stricken plane away from houses etc before crashing or ejecting.  

-K
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 12:19:34 AM EST
I'll look up the safety report when I go into work tomorrow. One of the risks of flying single engine airplanes is, well, you only have a single engine. Pointing the jet away from populated areas before pulling the handles is commonly briefed. I had heard the rumors that the dude ran out of gas because Obama was running behind schedule. If the throttle malfunction is the real cause, it sounds like this dude did alright.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:05:41 AM EST
Any word on the Blue Angel that crashed on the same day? That pilot died, iirc.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:07:51 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 1:10:54 AM EST by Troutman84]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Grendel-OK:
Any word on the Blue Angel that crashed on the same day? That pilot died, iirc.
View Quote



Yep. He attempted a split-S with too high a starting airspeed and not enough altitude. Flew his plane into the ground.

ETA - A split-S is a simple aerobatic maneuver where you perform a 180 degree roll, placing your aircraft in an inverted attitude. You then pull the nose of the aircraft through 180 degrees of travel in the vertical plane. It's basically the back half of a loop.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:13:33 AM EST
The board did laud Turner for staying with the plane to low altitude in order to steer it away from homes. The board found that Turner ejected at a lower-than-recommended altitude because he wanted the jet to crash in an open field.
View Quote

If I recall correctly, then several years back there was a Blue Angel pilot who also stayed with his plane too long into a malfunction because he was trying to avoid crashing into civilian homes. He was not as fortunate as Major Turner, and was killed in the crash, as I recall. 
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:17:58 AM EST
What happened to the theory of him running out of fuel because Barry spoke too long at the Air Force Academy graduation?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:20:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Colt_sporter:
What happened to the theory of him running out of fuel because Barry spoke too long at the Air Force Academy graduation?
View Quote

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:31:33 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 
View Quote


If I had to guess, it was loaded with JP-8. Not quite kerosene, but a similarly low octane.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:35:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 1:36:46 AM EST by 2A373]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Troutman84:


If I had to guess, it was loaded with JP-8. Not quite kerosene, but a similarly low octane.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Troutman84:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 


If I had to guess, it was loaded with JP-8. Not quite kerosene, but a similarly low octane.


The AF switched from JP-8 to Jet A a couple years ago.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/547593/air-force-completes-historic-fuel-conversion.aspx?source=GovD
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:42:22 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ch3no2:
Balls... that pilot has them.

Dead-stick and falling out of the sky, and he stayed with it to keep it from lawn darting into apartment buildings.
Punched out at a 'lower than recommended altitude' as a result.

I don't know how much those guys are paid, but it ain't enough
View Quote



There were no apartment buildings to avoid, just a lot of open space just beyond 2 neighborhoods, one of them being mine (it landed a few thousand feet north of our house and about 2 miles short of the runway, just off to the side of a long straight road). There are a lot of places to park a plane near there, and it has happened several times - one a 737 that did nosedive and just miss an apartment building about a mile to the west.

G
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:48:55 AM EST
Some CDI(guy who inspects maintenance actions) is getting the long dick of of the AF.

I was a CDI and I would probably be CM or kicked out through NJP if that was me.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 2:12:41 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ruger556boy:
Some CDI(guy who inspects maintenance actions) is getting the long dick of of the AF.

I was a CDI and I would probably be CM or kicked out through NJP if that was me.
View Quote

So.... blame the enlisted guy?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 2:14:37 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:

So.... blame the enlisted guy?
View Quote

Basically yes.

In the navy they will try to blame the maintainer at all costs.

But if the maintainer followed all pubs then they will be fine. But it's a trial though fire if it does happen. Basically guilty until proven innocent.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 11:53:41 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ziarifleman:
So.... blame the enlisted guy?
View Quote


No. The pubs are fucked up.
Pilots don't operate the aircraft using maintenance publications.

They use the "dash one" manual.

Not pilot or maintainer fault.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 12:33:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Troutman84:



Yep. He attempted a split-S with too high a starting airspeed and not enough altitude. Flew his plane into the ground.

ETA - A split-S is a simple aerobatic maneuver where you perform a 180 degree roll, placing your aircraft in an inverted attitude. You then pull the nose of the aircraft through 180 degrees of travel in the vertical plane. It's basically the back half of a loop.
View Quote


I think the final report was pilot fatigue, ie insufficient crew rest.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 12:48:32 PM EST
Interesting that the article cited confusing and contradictory statements in the maintenence manual.

Even after all these years of flying them there are still things like this that can pop up.  Complex machines and the systems in which they operate.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 12:55:07 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 
View Quote


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 12:56:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
Interesting that the article cited confusing and contradictory statements in the maintenence manual.

Even after all these years of flying them there are still things like this that can pop up.  Complex machines and the systems in which they operate.
View Quote

One might argue that the demo teams fly an envelop that a normal pilot/mission does not so the maintenance procedures might not be right for both of them.


Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:04:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:

One might argue that the demo teams fly an envelop that a normal pilot/mission does not so the maintenance procedures might not be right for both of them.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:
Interesting that the article cited confusing and contradictory statements in the maintenence manual.

Even after all these years of flying them there are still things like this that can pop up.  Complex machines and the systems in which they operate.

One might argue that the demo teams fly an envelop that a normal pilot/mission does not so the maintenance procedures might not be right for both of them.




That's what interests me more than anything else. I love incident investigations because you tend to find those little nuggets. Nothing near as complex or life/death but at a former workplace we found that an SOP which contained language from a manufacture's manual was wrong after 13 years of it being followed. Even the manufacture didn't realize they had published it incorrectly and the best part was that wasn't even the root cause of the incident just a tertiary finding.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:09:33 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wgjhsafT:


That's what interests me more than anything else. I love incident investigations because you tend to find those little nuggets. Nothing near as complex or life/death but at a former workplace we found that an SOP which contained language from a manufacture's manual was wrong after 13 years of it being followed. Even the manufacture didn't realize they had published it incorrectly and the best part was that wasn't even the root cause of the incident just a tertiary finding.
View Quote


Reading this one it seems like the pilot fully retracted the throttle during flight causing an engine shutdown Is that something that would be done in a normal sortie? I don't know. Not a pilot.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:18:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Reading this one it seems like the pilot fully retracted the throttle during flight causing an engine shutdown Is that something that would be done in a normal sortie? I don't know. Not a pilot.
View Quote



In normal engine operation, pulling the throttle all the way back would but the engine in the idle setting. With the throttle cutoff trigger malfunctioning as the report says, pulling it back all the way would go past the idle stop to engine cutoff. Sad way to kill an F-16.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:21:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 1:22:48 PM EST by Vne]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.


Ive heard that before but I believe it's a myth.
I think it's just the end result of looking for an unassigned identifier. Obviously, the K signifies that it's a tanker. Normally they go with the first letter of the word they're trying to identify to use as it's identifier. F=fighter, C=cargo, D=drone, O= observation, R=reconnaissance, W=weather reconnaissance...
The T was already used for Trainer. A was already used for Attack and later modified to Ground Attack. N has always been reserved for Special Test Permanent aircraft. Next came K.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:26:28 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.

An interesting thought on the history of why the mission letter is K, but the JP-4 that the tankers gave from the KB-29 until the 90's was a wide cut fuel about 50/50 gasoline/kerosene.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:54:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:


Ive heard that before but I believe it's a myth.
I think it's just the end result of looking for an unassigned identifier. Obviously, the K signifies that it's a tanker. Normally they go with the first letter of the word they're trying to identify to use as it's identifier. F=fighter, C=cargo, D=drone, O= observation, R=reconnaissance, W=weather reconnaissance...
The T was already used for Trainer. A was already used for Attack and later modified to Ground Attack. N has always been reserved for Special Test Permanent aircraft. Next came K.
View Quote


I got it from a source document early 50s. I don't remember which. It may be an urban legend, but its one dating to the 50s at least.

nevertheless Jet-A, Kerosene, and JP-8, JP-4 are essentially identical outside of additives.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 1:58:49 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


I got it from a source document early 50s. I don't remember which. It may be an urban legend, but its one dating to the 50s at least.

nevertheless Jet-A, Kerosene, and JP-8, JP-4 are essentially identical outside of additives.
View Quote


whoops.

quite a bit of difference there.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 2:00:42 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Troutman84:
I'll look up the safety report when I go into work tomorrow. One of the risks of flying single engine airplanes is, well, you only have a single engine. Pointing the jet away from populated areas before pulling the handles is commonly briefed. I had heard the rumors that the dude ran out of gas because Obama was running behind schedule. If the throttle malfunction is the real cause, it sounds like this dude did alright.
View Quote


The safety report is Executive Privileged info.  Dont spout it here....but you know that I hope.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 2:57:05 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 2:57:40 PM EST by sabre_kc]
Post Fail.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 2:59:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

If I recall correctly, then several years back there was a Blue Angel pilot who also stayed with his plane too long into a malfunction because he was trying to avoid crashing into civilian homes. He was not as fortunate as Major Turner, and was killed in the crash, as I recall. 
View Quote


Lt Commander Kevin Davis. Met him at an airshow at MKC, he gave me a numbered Blue Angels challenge coin. Flew combat sorties in an F-14 in the early days of the fighting in Afghanistan. He was a great American.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 3:03:33 PM EST
Allowed the pilot to turn the plane off? Like a stall?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 3:06:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2016 3:07:56 PM EST by Azygos]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 
View Quote


That's not exactly a full bag of gas when fuel consumption is 3,000-8,000 pounds per hour without the reheater. Caveat: I'm not a pilot, so may be way off base.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 3:18:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


I got it from a source document early 50s. I don't remember which. It may be an urban legend, but its one dating to the 50s at least.

nevertheless Jet-A, Kerosene, and JP-8, JP-4 are essentially identical outside of additives.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Vne:


Ive heard that before but I believe it's a myth.
I think it's just the end result of looking for an unassigned identifier. Obviously, the K signifies that it's a tanker. Normally they go with the first letter of the word they're trying to identify to use as it's identifier. F=fighter, C=cargo, D=drone, O= observation, R=reconnaissance, W=weather reconnaissance...
The T was already used for Trainer. A was already used for Attack and later modified to Ground Attack. N has always been reserved for Special Test Permanent aircraft. Next came K.


I got it from a source document early 50s. I don't remember which. It may be an urban legend, but its one dating to the 50s at least.

nevertheless Jet-A, Kerosene, and JP-8, JP-4 are essentially identical outside of additives.


I can't help but note that every other aircraft's prefix is taken from their mission role. To suddenly assign an identifier based off of the name of a liquid it doesn't actually carry would be a very strange departure from the norm.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 3:20:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:


I can't help but note that every other aircraft's prefix is taken from their mission role. To suddenly assign an identifier based off of the name of a liquid it doesn't actually carry would be a very strange departure from the norm.
View Quote


Kerosene Cargo actually makes sense.

F-Fighter
P-Pursuit
A-Attack
B-Bomber
C-Cargo
etc etc etc

What else should we assume K would mean, taking your statement to its logical conclusion?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 3:55:52 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Kerosene Cargo actually makes sense.

F-Fighter
P-Pursuit
A-Attack
B-Bomber
C-Cargo
etc etc etc

What else should we assume K would mean, taking your statement to its logical conclusion?
View Quote


Here's what I've been able to find so far:

http://www.driko.org/usdes2.html

Air Force started using the K-code for tankers in 1949. Tankers at the time (KB-29's) carried Av-Gas not jet fuel (kerosene). Early tankers didn't use the AF style flying boom setup. That came about in the early 1950's to refuel SAC bombers. By then the KB-29s were being supplemented/replaced with KC-97s, which were then replaced by the KC-135.

While they have pumped kerosene/JP fuels for the vast majority of their career, the K-code precedes this. The 1962 tri-service designation system made K-code the standard for tankers. From 1958-62 the Navy/USMC used G as their tanker mission designator.

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:03:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/16/2016 7:18:14 AM EST by Vne]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Kerosene Cargo actually makes sense.

F-Fighter
P-Pursuit
A-Attack
B-Bomber
C-Cargo
etc etc etc

What else should we assume K would mean, taking your statement to its logical conclusion?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By Vne:


I can't help but note that every other aircraft's prefix is taken from their mission role. To suddenly assign an identifier based off of the name of a liquid it doesn't actually carry would be a very strange departure from the norm.


Kerosene Cargo actually makes sense.

F-Fighter
P-Pursuit
A-Attack
B-Bomber
C-Cargo
etc etc etc

What else should we assume K would mean, taking your statement to its logical conclusion?


Well, again, they're not hauling kerosene. It's a kerosene based fuel just like cool-aid is a water based beverage. But it's no longer water anymore than JP-8 is kerosene. We only refer to jet fuel as kerosene in a tongue in cheek fashion. All KC aircraft are dual role in that they operate as tankers and cargo aircraft. They don't just carry fuel and even if they did, that fuel isn't kerosene. KC-10s have a huge cargo space as did the original tanker, the KC-97.
Kc-10 cargo deck:
Attachment Attached File


Kc-97 cargo deck:
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:11:04 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


Kerosene Cargo actually makes sense.

F-Fighter
P-Pursuit
A-Attack
B-Bomber
C-Cargo
etc etc etc

What else should we assume K would mean, taking your statement to its logical conclusion?
View Quote

Why do we have to assume it means anything? All of the obvious ones were taken. Heck, every other letter of "tanker" is assigned to a mission.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:16:00 PM EST
Half a ton of fuel?

Didn't we have a .mil pilot here a week or so ago saying they burn about 1000# in the pattern shooting approaches?
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:21:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By redfish86:
Half a ton of fuel?

Didn't we have a .mil pilot here a week or so ago saying they burn about 1000# in the pattern shooting approaches?
View Quote

An F-16 holds less than 6000 pounds of fuel internally so 1k isn't a lot but it isn't nothing either. What a little or a lot is depends on the plane. My jet can be off by 4000 pounds of fuel and we are still good to know because we deal in bigger numbers.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:21:57 PM EST
Well where did the 'M' prefix for 'special equipment' come from? Modified??
And why are MV-22's Marine and CV-22's SOF?

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:32:46 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TarzanT:
Well where did the 'M' prefix for 'special equipment' come from? Modified??
And why are MV-22's Marine and CV-22's SOF?
View Quote

M is multimission.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:36:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:

M is multimission.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:
Originally Posted By TarzanT:
Well where did the 'M' prefix for 'special equipment' come from? Modified??
And why are MV-22's Marine and CV-22's SOF?

M is multimission.

Realistically the Air Force's should have been MVs and the Marines' CVs but I suspect the Marines designated theirs first and AFSOC didn't want to be a B model of what the Marines bought.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:41:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Realistically the Air Force's should have been MVs and the Marines' CVs but I suspect the Marines designated theirs first and AFSOC didn't want to be a B model of what the Marines bought.
View Quote


Supposedly, the Marines abandoned the normal mission prefix naming system with the V-22 because they wanted a M in front to stand for Marines. Seems like the services all march to a different beat when it comes to naming prefixes and they don't always march to their own beat very well all the time. Then there's always the possibility for political influence.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 4:44:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:


Supposedly, the Marines abandoned the normal mission prefix naming system with the V-22 because they wanted a M in front to stand for Marines. Seems like the services all march to a different beat when it comes to naming prefixes and they don't always march to their own beat very well all the time. Then there's always the possibility for political influence.
View Quote

My dream job is to be the guy that approves additions to 4120.15-L and I'll hold people to the basic rules of designation as set forth in the tri-service designation system with an iron fist.
Link Posted: 12/15/2016 5:12:47 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

My dream job is to be the guy that approves additions to 4120.15-L and I'll hold people to the basic rules of designation as set forth in the tri-service designation system with an iron fist. <img src=http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_abused.gif border=0 align=middle>
View Quote


LOL.

Overnight, you'd have more enemies than you could shake a stick at.

Link Posted: 12/15/2016 5:42:27 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:


Supposedly, the Marines abandoned the normal mission prefix naming system with the V-22 because they wanted a M in front to stand for Marines. Seems like the services all march to a different beat when it comes to naming prefixes and they don't always march to their own beat very well all the time. Then there's always the possibility for political influence.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Vne:
Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Realistically the Air Force's should have been MVs and the Marines' CVs but I suspect the Marines designated theirs first and AFSOC didn't want to be a B model of what the Marines bought.


Supposedly, the Marines abandoned the normal mission prefix naming system with the V-22 because they wanted a M in front to stand for Marines. Seems like the services all march to a different beat when it comes to naming prefixes and they don't always march to their own beat very well all the time. Then there's always the possibility for political influence.


I like that! Just think, it's now the MF-35!

Link Posted: 12/16/2016 1:41:21 AM EST
A US ton = 2,0000 lbs

Half a ton is 1,000 lbs.

Jet A (NATO Code F-24) weighs in at 6.8 lbs.

1,000 / 6.8 = 147 gallons.

Military and civilian turbine powered aircraft do not gauge fuel by gallons, it's done by pounds.

The F-16 (intardweb numbers, please feel free to correct me) basic fuel burn numbers-
297.5 lbs per minute in burner.
44.4 lbs per minute in cruise.

Link Posted: 12/16/2016 1:57:30 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sylvan:
Originally Posted By motown_steve:

According to the article he had half a ton of kerosene on board. I didn't know F-16s ran on kerosene, but whatever. 


All jet fuel is essentially kerosene. Some anti-congealing compounds added.

That is what the K in KC-10/KC-135 originally stood for.


K has been the joint designation for tanker since we transferred avgas. (1949)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_United_States_Army_Air_Service_aircraft_designation_system
Link Posted: 12/16/2016 1:58:42 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By sven3839:



In normal engine operation, pulling the throttle all the way back would but the engine in the idle setting. With the throttle cutoff trigger malfunctioning as the report says, pulling it back all the way would go past the idle stop to engine cutoff. Sad way to kill an F-16.
View Quote


The pilot pulled the throttle to the engine stop position, the malfunctioning switch just made it possible. He fucked up, but t-birds pilots are infallible.
Link Posted: 12/16/2016 2:18:39 AM EST
US Military Aircraft designation systems after 1962.

They use the MDS system.
MDS stands for "Mission-Design-Series".

First letter before the dash = Basic Mission
First number after the dash = Design Number

F-16
F = Fighter
16 = Design Number

The second letter before the dash = Modified Mission

MV-22A
M = Multimission
V = VTOL/STOL
22 = Design Number
A = Series Letter

According to the instruction governing military aircraft designations there can't be a third prefix letter, however...

ERA-3B
E = Special Electronic Mission
R = Reconnaissance (In this case it was a photo reconnaissance aircraft)
A = Attack
3 = Design Letter
B = Series letter

If the aircraft is not in normal operational service it can receive a prefix letter in its designation to reflect its current status.

YF-22
Y = Prototype
F = Fighter
22 = Design Number

NKC-135A
N = Special Test, Permanent
K = Tanker
C = Cargo
135 - Design Number
A = Series Letter

Sometimes a customer requests a special series letter.
The F-16N was an "out of sequence" letter.

F-16N
F = Fighter
16 = Design Number
N = Navy

TF-16N
T = Trainer
F = Fighter
16 = Design Number
N = Navy

C-2A(R)
C = Cargo
2 = Design Number
A = Series Letter
(R) = Reprocure (The Navy bought 39 new C-2A's that were based on the E-2C - The original C-2 was based on the E-2A with a redesigned fuselage - Think Superhornet).
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top