Thunderbird "flip" at Dayton

91-0466 F-16D
91-0479 F-16D

Which of these two was the jet that flipped at Dayton?

91-0466

Is it gonna return to flying status?

From what i can see in the pics it needs a new forward fuselage and a new verticle stabilizer. Fixable but will the air force go thru with the repairs or not is to be determined.

From what i can see in the pics it needs a new forward fuselage and a new verticle stabilizer. Fixable but will the air force go thru with the repairs or not is to be determined.

Well I know where they might get the vertical stabilizer from... Its already in Thunderbird colors...
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article5055.html

Report on crash with USAF report... EXTRA INFO: https://www.defensetech.org/2017/11/03/ ... nway-wind/

Investigation: Pilot Landing Too Quickly, Heavy Rain Caused June F-16 Crash
03 Nov 2017 Brian Everstine

"​A USAF Thunderbird F-16 was destroyed while landing in June in Dayton, Ohio, because the pilot touched down going too quickly for the rainy conditions, an Air Combat Command investigation found.

On June 23, an F-16D, tail number 91-0466, from the Air Force’s Air Demonstration Squadron of the 57th Wing at Nellis AFB, Nev., was flying a “familiarization sortie” at James M. Cox Dayton International Airport with a member of the team’s crew in the back seat....

USAF: http://www.airforcemag.com/AircraftAcci ... Dayton.pdf (1.24Mb)

...The pilot made no attempt to eject, and was stuck in the aircraft as rescuers were forced to cut through the canopy to get the pilot. The pilot sustained several injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital. The crew member in the back seat was not injured.

The F-16 was destroyed in the mishap, at a total loss of $29.2 million.

While the AIB president found the main cause of the crash was the pilot landing with excess airspeed, the board also found other contributions to the mishap were environmental conditions affecting the pilot’s vision, a misperception of the changing environment, and the pilot not following procedure for braking on a wet runway."

PHOTO: "​An F-16 of the Air Force’s Thunderbirds sits overturned in June near the runway at Dayton International Airport in Ohio. Air Force photo" http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pub ... nohio0.jpg

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... Crash.aspx

You know, even though Dayton has a reasonably long runway, I think under the conditions, I might have considered going across the street to Wright-Patt with its arresting gear....possibly even an approach end arrestment.

I did one once as a low time student at TUS when a generator oil line came loose on the range and the EPU malfunctioned. The AF advisor who had been in Vipers since the early days said it was only the second approach end arrestment he'd seen operationally. Was there a reluctance to do them or just rarely a reason to?

I recall a -1 caution to lock your harness and a warning to get the nose wheel down before engaging the cable....but with the nose wheel down not to use more than a couple pounds forward pressure on the sidestick....or you could collapse the nose gear.

I wonder who had the dubious pleasure of determining that. (maybe johnwill )

edit: (BTW we had F-105s that flew final slower than 193....not much slower though)

Turns out you are right, although I was not in the airplane. I was the GD engineer on the arresting gear test program at Edwards in 1979. We did about 94 arrestments at various weights, speeds, and off center distances. It was predicted and verified that nose gear on the ground was essential to a safe arrestment. There were two arrestments that really got our attention, a 30 ft off center that caused the right main gear to come off the ground and a nose gear limit load case with low strut pressure that simulated an arrestment with nose gear off the ground. The result was a fully compressed strut that essentially became a rigid link. I don't remember the pilot's name, but he more than earned his salary during that three week test.

Salute!

John-boy recalls things as I do.

The JTF guys that came up to Hill told us the same thing. I am not so sure having the nose up was so much to grab the cable as it was for not hurting the nose gear.

There was definitely a reluctance to try an approach arrestment as many of us felt the hook was skimpy compared to the Double Ugly and Sluf hooks that were right from Navy designs. The other thing was it was very hard to "drive" the Viper onto the runway within a hundred or two hundred feet of your aim point. The sucker floated and most folks flew it a bit fast, like 11 deg AoA versus the original tech order 13 deg AoA.

I agree with OL that the guy should have gone around and diverted.

Gums opines...

Only knew of one approach end engagement. Our brand new DO, min Viper time - F4/F15 driver, directed an over water, night approach...runway 18 at the Kun. Took a minor electrical issue and nearly turned it into a class A. Tough to hit the first brick in a black hole and then hit the cable centerline...and oh yeah, don't have your hand on the throttle.

Concur w diverting to WP...but given the Viper's tinkertoy gear and hook, would rather aim at the departure end.

Salute!

John-boy recalls things as I do.

The JTF guys that came up to Hill told us the same thing. I am not so sure having the nose up was so much to grab the cable as it was for not hurting the nose gear.

There was definitely a reluctance to try an approach arrestment as many of us felt the hook was skimpy compared to the Double Ugly and Sluf hooks that were right from Navy designs. The other thing was it was very hard to "drive" the Viper onto the runway within a hundred or two hundred feet of your aim point. The sucker floated and most folks flew it a bit fast, like 11 deg AoA versus the original tech order 13 deg AoA.

I agree with OL that the guy should have gone around and diverted.

Gums opines...

Right, the nose gear on the ground was to protect the gear from being slammed down from the hook engagement force. The hook was skimpy compared to F-4 and A-7 for the reason you mentioned. But the load on the hook was also much much lower, due to the 1000 ft runout on the runway compared to 200 ft on the CV deck. Limit load on the Block 10 hook was 62,000 lb, and it took a 150kt engagement to reach that. Oddly enough, gross weight did not make much difference in max hook load, since the max load occurred at hook impact on the cable, not during the long roll out. The Navy hooks reach max load during that short roll out.

Also, the Navy hooks are used thousands of times, while the F-16 hook might be used maybe 10 times plus being used as tie down during ground engine runs at a relatively low load.

Hi folks,

First post in a long while. But, I was hoping that someone had some more information about 466. The media is reporting the aircraft as destroyed. However, I'd heard some RUMINT, that repairs may be attempted. My gut tells me, that it will be the former, not the latter, as I've encountered birds that were written off for less. Then again, there was A model 79-0377, aka, "Twice as Nice." http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... rofile/557

Now, I get it. When that bird had its two mishaps, it was a 5, and 8 year old airframe at the time of the mishaps. This tail, was 26. That might play a big factor into what 12AF and ACC decide to do with it. If anyone knows anything about it, I'd definitely appreciate it.

Salute!

Welcome back, TC. Long time. and I spemd most time over on the F-35

I don't think the bird will ever fly again.

Now, we had several repaired in Utah after mishaps involving damage. One of them might have made it, but would up at Lowry to train folks - 780013. That was the one that landed itself after the guy punched real low. Main damage we to one of the main gear. It actually looked better than the Thunderbird one last year at C. Springs.

BTW, plenty of good stuff about this on Pprune Military Forum. YOu can read, but may need to be probationary to post.

Gums sends...

Thanks, Gums! That's what I was thinking, especially with the standing up of more Lightning units coming up in the not-too-distant future. The Thunderbirds can always procure another D model from the operational world. I didn't realize until seeing the pic, that it looks as though the pit nearly separated from the bulkhead. Spruce up the cockpit section, and it might make a nice museum piece for the kiddies and fanboys. Or, do some cosmetic repairs to the whole airframe, and put it on a stick somewhere. Either that, or a Mx trainer at Sheppard. Either way, as I said, my gut was telling me that repair was likely a no-go. It's a shame, but I understand.

Thanks, Gums! That's what I was thinking, especially with the standing up of more Lightning units coming up in the not-too-distant future. The Thunderbirds can always procure another D model from the operational world. I didn't realize until seeing the pic, that it looks as though the pit nearly separated from the bulkhead. Spruce up the cockpit section, and it might make a nice museum piece for the kiddies and fanboys. Or, do some cosmetic repairs to the whole airframe, and put it on a stick somewhere. Either that, or a Mx trainer at Sheppard. Either way, as I said, my gut was telling me that repair was likely a no-go. It's a shame, but I understand.

There is only ~9 other F-16D Block 52s in USAF inventory. Maybe Nellis aggressor squadron will transfer one of their F-16Ds?

There was a case where the USN 'grafted' a F/A-18E Lot 25 nose to a F/A-18F Lot 25 fuselage so that the F/A-18E jet would be common to the squadron, flying Lot 25 jets. Lot 25 is the most advanced Block I Super Hornet, with some of the Block II components. If they'd taken a different Lot jet, there would be some maintenance and parts logistics issues.

I'm not sure the exact difference between F-16 version, but according to the database the Thunderbirds F-16s are all F-16C/D Block 52D or Block 52 P versions.

There is very few F-16C/D Block 50/52 jets that could be used for parts, unless by some lucky chance the recently damaged F-16C from the Colorado crash broke different components. I believe the tail from that jet has been removed for reuse.