F-16.net

parrothead wrote:

Don't blame you at all Henkster! Do you always use negative reinforcement to train the pilots? Laughing

!

well parrothead,

The problem is I like the saying "safety first" and I take my job serious.

The ejection seat of a F-16 is a zero-zero ejection seat so that means that it doesn't need any forward motion or hight to activate the seat. So if this pilot get out of his seat while the seat is NOT de-armed and by accident get stuck on the D ring it will go off and I don't like it when it is next to me.

Mostly it happend to newbies after a difficult mission or with pilot's that have a deskjob and fly only once a month to keep the flying allowence these guys tend to get a bit rusty on the whole flying thing anyway but it's fun especially during the launch.

Other than that I am a nice guy to pilot's.

greetz Henkster

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3039 Status: Offline

Couldn't agree more - SAFETY FIRST!!! I didn't mean to offend you or to minimize the danger of the seats, I was just kidding about the training methods. I've always known that ejection seats can take lives just as quickly as they save them, so I didn't mean to joke about the safety. Kevin's "Ejection Site" has given me a whole new appreciation for the complexity of these devices, and the danger too. Sorry if I came across wrong.

parrothead wrote:

Couldn't agree more - SAFETY FIRST!!! I didn't mean to offend you or to minimize the danger of the seats, I was just kidding about the training methods. I've always known that ejection seats can take lives just as quickly as they save them, so I didn't mean to joke about the safety. Kevin's "Ejection Site" has given me a whole new appreciation for the complexity of these devices, and the danger too. Sorry if I came across wrong.

Parrothead,

NO HARD Feelings my friend.

It's all part of the learning curve we're all in.

Pilot's tend to need a different approach so now and then.
All because they are the pilot's and we are the ground crew.
That's all

greetz henkster

I've asked a few questons about F-16 maintenance recently and this seems to be the place to ask more.

If you were to assume that you were working on an F-16 that was not going to ever be loaded or armed, and would be used exclusively for recreational flight, say a rich civilian bought one and it was in good shape, would a crew of two be adequate to maintain it most of the time? With no weapons systems (and probably no radar) to maintain, I'd guess it'd be a pretty easy plane to maintain, wouldn't it?

At a guess, how much in the way of specialized support equipment is required to provide full service maintenance to an F-16? Up to and including engine stands for engine swaps. And how much space
would that equipment occupy if stored together?

CJ

Look, I have had that same question asked by others who think it would be cheaper to have an F-16 than a Cessna Citation. F-16s break constantly. Even while sitting there. If you want it to fly with no bells and whistles, then okay. But besides that, you are talking about a lot of equipment and speacialzes tools. Millions worth. And room, well, not bad. I suppose a hangar with that could hold 3 F-16s would hold 1 and then the equipment. But this stuff costs a lot and would be expensive to maintain. You have to remember that it is a fully integrated acft with fly by wire flight controls. Sometimes it is a $40,000 core charge on a bad part. A simple rubber grommit with a 1/2 inch diameter could cost $20 a piece. F-16 is an inexpensive fighter. But is is a fighter, and all fighters are expensive.

Oh, I realize that. But I'm on a bit of a fact finding mission, for a very good reason. I won't get into any details, but I will say that I'm doing some research for the benefit of....somebody....who just MIGHT be able to afford such a toy. He's VERY rich and what's better, we know where there IS an F-16 in private hands that IS a candidate for restoration to flightworthy condition.

Besides, I have a good feeling about my lottery tickets! Very Happy

CJ

Two wrenches no way. Many task such as engine pulls require around 4 to 5 folks. Even for a joy rider it would be a big task to maintain. You would need a few engines and someone who could inspect and rebuild them. The special equipment needed would be very expensive and much of it will not be on the open market. I can't imagine LM helping out either.

I would have to say it would not be feasible. You would have better luck buying a Russian MIG 29, they need the money and would most likely support anyone with the dollars. They took Dennis Tito to the ISS for 20Mil, for a cool 100Mil you most like could get a Fulcrum and the wrenches to take care of it for you. US/LM would not do that.

Joined: Feb 01, 2007 Posts: 0 Status: Offline

I'd work for anyone willing to shell out the $$

With the outlook in the next 10 years of the Viper and the Guard, I'll be looking for a job.

"Unemployed Jet Engine Mechanic - Borescope Certifier, Interactive Electronic Technical Manual System (IETMS) Administrator, Hush House/Run Qualified, 15+ Years of engine experience 10+ on F100-220/-229..........will work for food.........."

May not be funny in a few years............

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2850

bix wrote:

I'd work for anyone willing to shell out the $$

With the outlook in the next 10 years of the Viper and the Guard, I'll be looking for a job.

"Unemployed Jet Engine Mechanic - Borescope Certifier, Interactive Electronic Technical Manual System (IETMS) Administrator, Hush House/Run Qualified, 15+ Years of engine experience 10+ on F100-220/-229..........will work for food.........."

May not be funny in a few years............

Good point. If I had the cash I'd hire some people that have done the work before and know it in their sleep. That would include companies the government hires to maintain some of their jets. G.I.s don't maintain every single jet in the DOD. Private firms do some. Pick a comercial maintenance firm, cut the paper work and pay the $$$. Line, 400 hour phase, Depot overhaul when needed. etc. You might end up, having your jet "based" at a field that is convenient for the maintenance provider.

Joined: Feb 01, 2007 Posts: 0 Status: Offline

If I worked for a private individual or a company I could do the same for less.

Don't forget we "G.I.s" don't have a choice when following a "Technical Order"..........

They are an Order, by the Secretary of the United States Air Force and it's on the cover of each T.O.!

If we didn't have to do things "by the book" we could save the government millions of dollars and millions of labor hours.

Just to take an oil sample, you have to follow the "safe for maintenance" JG to ensure the aircraft is safe to work on, then refer to another JG to open the 1 button door to access the sample port, get a third JG to take your sample, put on all your PPE (gloves, splash-proof goggles) required by AFOSH/OSHA, take the sample, reverse the procedure, by removing your gear, replacing the cap, closing the door, all in different JGs, then fill out the proper form to submit the oil sample to the JOAP lab.

I could have done the whole job in less time than it took me to type this, IF I worked for YOU!

Keep paying your taxes..........

Newbie Joined: Apr 27, 2005 Posts: 5 Status: Offline

Mig 29 by far is the easiest, when it breaks, throw it away Very Happy

Quote:

Mig 29 by far is the easiest, when it breaks, throw it away Very Happy

With the Mig-29's combat record you could throw it away even before it breaks... (Oops, did I type that out loud?)

I would bet that the Pentagon would not be happy about a flying civilian F-16 out there. I'd imagine that they could, in association with many of the F-16's vendors / support groups, make it very difficult to maintain.
As a civilian how difficult would it be to deal with the hydrazine issue? I imagine that the AF gets a bit of a break from the EPA and Safety people.
They call it the 'Electric Jet' for a reason. The F-16 has some pretty important bits of electronic kit onboard. If your flight control computer cr*ps out, you're probably not going to be able to pull a spare off of the shelf, and I doubt that there are a lot of groups that would be capable - or willing (see #1) - to help out.

Mike

My bet is the civilian would just ditch the EPU and crash the Viper if it ever was needed. Or keep it and just use the bleed air mode. If the motor quits they would just get out. A civilian would not have to maintain the jet in a combat ready format. If it were an airshow only jet it would only be away from a runway when going between shows. I bet some engineer out there can figure out how to get around the epu. With combat loads being a non-issue weight is not a concern past the balance requirement.

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3039 Status: Offline

Quote:

With the Mig-29's combat record you could throw it away even before it breaks... (Oops, did I type that out loud?)

Why not - the Iraqi Air Force did Laughing

!

Civilian vipers would pose lots of problems, but I'd still like to see one in the right hands Smile

.

As we sit idly by and wait for Paul Allen to get his F-105 airworthy…

The first time you tried to buy a component for a Viper on the open market and the DOD heard about it, they would say the same thing to you that they did to the boy with the two Mig-29s sitting in Illinois he thought would be flying in the US, “Go ‘foxtrot’ yourself”…

Mig-29, doesn't that translate from russian as a twin engine tractor that is built with a sledge hammer from non-fitting components?

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Procedures

F-16 - Ease of maintenance