Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I work on Block 30 F-16's for the New Mexico Air National Guard. I'm looking for any documents relating to the F-16's crash survivability and any analysis to that effect that have been made. I've been searching for a while now and haven't found exactly what I'm looking for. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Thanks!

F-16.net Sponsor

How about - "Don't Crash = 100% Survivable..." LMAO

I would consider this safe to say this for ALL aircraft in inventory... Poke

Couldn't resist, sorry... Shrug

Keep 'em flyin' (SAFELY) Thumb

This has never been done before? Oh well thanks anyway.

Depends on what you mean by "crash survivability". If you mean a study of how many pilots survive F-16 crashes, I can't help you. But if you mean airplane design requirements for making crashes more survivable, you need to look at the Structural Design Criteria, which states the g loads that various airplane equipment must withstand during crashes to help protect the pilot. For example, the engine has to withstand a 40g forward acting inertia load during a crash to prevent it from breaking loose and going forward, doing a lot of damage on the way.

That's exactly what I'm looking for johwill. If the pilot fails to eject what is the crash survivability (in percentage) for that pilot. Many if not all aircraft have a crash survivability analysis done on their design. I just haven't been able to find any for a F-16 yet. It considers landing gear design and positioning, fuel tank design, seat design, fuselage design ect. Some engines are actually designed to seperate in a crash to get away from the pilot.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM Posts: 760

F-16 Hits Trees At Ridgeline. With after mishap photos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8tP6TuzdHE

solid wrote:

Some engines are actually designed to seperate in a crash to get away from the pilot.

Unless, that is, you're sitting directly ahead of said engine... Shocked

solid,
Within the structural engineering department, what I mentioned before is about all that is done for survivability. There was no other requirement for designing the structure for crash conditions. However, other areas (pilot viehicle interface, safety, crew station design, etc) may do more. Sorry, I can't help you with that.

Rather than hunt for paper analysis, at this point in the F-16 history, it is more valuable to focus on actual results. The entire radome/forward avionics bay/cockpit area is cantilevered out over the inlet, and in a mild ground collision or off-runway excursion, often breaks off from the rest of the fuselage at the aft cockpit bulkhead. It is not rare for the jet to look repairable aft of the cockpit, and nothing forward remaining except small bits of debris. A Viper is not designed to be a good off-road vehicle. The Flight Manual guidance is [Link pending approval] if departing the paved surface at more than taxi speed, consider ejection. Often, in cases of aborted takeoffs not getting stopped, or landings gone off the side or the end of the runway, or in cases of engine out glides after the pilot has ejected, the jet looks fixable except for needing a new cockpit section. The attached photo shows the typical result.

It may look ok from outside, but often damage is deep within.

Aircraft that hit hard enough to snap off the forward section are typically bent all the way through.

It is cheaper to write them off than to fix them in most cases.

Engines are a similar situation. Sure it may look fine and run fine now, but impacts can cause damage to the main bearings. Even a few small dimples in a bearing race will cause a bearing failure. Engines that drop or bang around need to be torn down to the main bearings just in case.

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

F-16 crash survivability analysis