F-16 from Kunsan down

An F-16 pilot assigned to Kunsan Air Base in South Korea ejected near the base while attempting to land Monday afternoon, the Air Force said.

The Fighting Falcon pilot, who ejected safely and suffered minor injuries, was taken to a medical facility, the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan said in a release. The pilot ejected at about 3:30 p.m. local time near Kunsan’s runway, while trying to conduct what the base said was a routine landing.

Wing Commander Col. Tad Clark suspended all civilian and military flying operations there “to ensure the safety and security of people and assets,” the release said.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... alflow+AIR

Now that the unfortunate pilot is not seriously wounded, I can afford this comment...

Reminds me of when I played Falcon 3.0, when the AI auto-pilot landed the F-16, it often crashed the F-16 on the runway.
Even if I pressed the eject command, the pilot often became wounded or worse, MIA.
These removed one F-16 and one pilot from the squadron inventory anyway.

Thus, after the F-16 was in final approach, I manually ended the mission before it touched down on the runway. (9_9;)

If a single engine aircraft crashes always the main suspect is the engine. AFAIK the GEF110 models especially the GE100 are WAY more less dependable and way more prone to mechanical breaks than the competition engine: F100 series especially 229.

How many perfectly healthy F-16s were lost in last 20 years solely because GE power plant have failed? A 3digit number?

If a single engine aircraft crashes always the main suspect is the engine. AFAIK the GEF110 models especially the GE100 are WAY more less dependable and way more prone to mechanical breaks than the competition engine: F100 series especially 229.

How many perfectly healthy F-16s were lost in last 20 years solely because GE power plant have failed? A 3digit number?

I don't know what exactly you are basing that on - you would need to account for the number of each in service as well.

Total USAF Engine related F-16 class A mishaps from in service to 2018:

F110-GE-100 = 42
F110-GE-129 = 11
F110-PW-229 = 0

Then you would need to know the exact details of every single incident to know if there was an actual reliability issue here and not one of many other things.

F110-GE-100 = 42
F110-GE-129 = 11
F110-PW-229 = 0

I feel like these numbers really speak for itself..
Pratt did a tremendously good engine from a safety point of view, GE well.. (look up).

F110-GE-100 = 42
F110-GE-129 = 11
F110-PW-229 = 0

I feel like these numbers really speak for itself..
Pratt did a tremendously good engine from a safety point of view, GE well.. (look up).

It’s great that you feel like that, but the numbers truly don’t speak for themselves, and you can’t draw that conclusion solely from what basher posted. Like he said, there’s way more that goes into it if you wanted to calculate which engine has a better safety record over time.

Not saying I know which it is, but definitely saying you don’t either, using soley what we see here posted (and whether it is accurate or not too, I dunno).

I suppose the PW-220 would be the equivalent to the GE-100 despite having a lot less power. This is what is listed

F110-GE-100 - 42 class A mishaps in 4069175 EFH (flight hours presumably )
F100-PW-220 - 23 class A mishaps in 2441362 EFH

USAF only - definitely not a measure of reliability without a lot more info

https://www.airforcemag.com/USAF-Sees-N ... t-Crashes/

USAF Sees No Widespread Safety Issues with F-16s Despite Recent Crashes

2019/11/06

A total of 338 F-16s were destroyed from 1975 to 2019.
By comparison, only 126 F-15s were destroyed during that same time period.
Fiscal 2014 was the most recent year in which no F-16s were destroyed, according to Air Force Safety Center data through fiscal 2019.
In that time, six people died from F-16 mishaps.

Six jets were destroyed in fiscal 2015, five in fiscal 2016, two each in fiscal 2017 and 2018, and one in 2019.
At least two F-16s were irreparably damaged every year from calendar 1979 to fiscal 2013.

F110-GE-100 = 42
F110-GE-129 = 11
F110-PW-229 = 0

I feel like these numbers really speak for itself..
Pratt did a tremendously good engine from a safety point of view, GE well.. (look up).

It’s great that you feel like that, but the numbers truly don’t speak for themselves, and you can’t draw that conclusion solely from what basher posted. Like he said, there’s way more that goes into it if you wanted to calculate which engine has a better safety record over time.

Not saying I know which it is, but definitely saying you don’t either, using soley what we see here posted (and whether it is accurate or not too, I dunno).

I was at Hill when one of the Block 40 -110 engine related crashes happened. The depot didn't put all the bearing components back in the engine after "servicing" it. Any engine would have failed...

Back on topic - anyone know which tail # was involved in this mishap?