Forum: F-16 News

Definitely an unfortunate day for the pilot and his family, the USAF, and a beautiful machine.

For all the young drivers out there, there is absolutely NO reason this should have happened if you do everything right. Worst case that should ever happen is to depart a prepared surface with the engine off resulting in minimal damage. Read the -1, know the -1, live the -1. Then ask the old craniums if you got any questions.

Unfortunately, we all have bad days...some worse than others...

On a funny note, the dude grabbed is helmet bag on the emergency egress! That's an interesting priority.

Let's just hope the knee jerk reaction isn't to ban operations at fields without cables and not to go to airshows...

F-16.net Sponsor

It's hard to tell exactly where 87-0296 touched down but it's readily apparent he carried much greater speed than his wingman ahead of him.

Flight path marker on the HUD takes away any guessing on where you're going to touch down on the runway; given his speed and where he floated to down the runway, it looks like he should have executed a missed approach preferably even before his main wheels touched down, and certainly before his NLG touched down.

I think he was still carrying too much speed at the end of the runway that even if his wingman had not been there on taxiway A-1, he still could not have veered 45 degrees right and saved it.

36 is an 8,002' runway, but it's full ILS with MALSR, little excuse for this mishap with all the aids available to the pilot. A missed approach at Oshkosh is a whole lot less embarrassing than running off the runway as this guy did.

ygbsm wrote:

Then ask the old craniums if you got any questions.

Rumor has it that the pilot WAS the old cranium - Maintenance Commander for his unit. Can anyone confirm? Embarassed

guardbaby wrote:

ygbsm wrote:

Then ask the old craniums if you got any questions.

Rumor has it that the pilot WAS the old cranium - Maintenance Commander for his unit. Can anyone confirm? Embarassed

Well, if that is the case, then leadership has boofed it again. I've seen pilots be Support CCs and Mx CCs (and still fly). It never works, they can't be good at either, and both sides of the community has no respect for them.

I guess they get the position because they is what is best for them in their career and not what is best for the mission. Of course, that is nothing new.

03fomoco wrote:

Guess I am going with engine transferred to SEC due to multiple issues...

Agreed:

Aviation gas-turbine engines use AIR to operate not dirt/mud. One also has to consider the airflow of that engine went to nothing in a fraction of a second. The engine likely stalled and over-temped instantly due to the lack of any credible airflow. The massive amount of FOD entering (most likely) all the way into the N2 compressor didn't help matters.

Ztex wrote:

Looks to me like the engine fire may have been caused by the injection of a large amount of mud?

I'd agree with this too:

To my knowledge you can't compress dirt like air and it won't supply enough O2 to support combustion at the needed rate. Lack of airflow will cause an engine to stall, over-temp and/or flame-out almost instantly too. The white smoke seen at first is likely unburnt fuel vapors caused by the combustion interruption inside the engine.

On top of the engine's likely flame-out; the spinning engine (still winding down after the flame-out) would continue to pump un-burnable fuel into the engine's combustion chamber until the throttle was placed in CUT-OFF. (more on CUT-OFF below)

The fire appears to be a 'flash' of the vapors that accumulated inside the engine: As enough oxygen flows down into the engine through the exhaust and the hot engine parts ignite the fuel/air mixture. Had the inlet not been buried in mud, you'd have likely seen a fire flash out the inlet as well. (A reason you should wait after shut-down before you're performing an inlet inspection to allow the vapors to dissipate on certain engines) You may notice the fire doesn't start right away as the fuel/air ratio was probably too rich to flash; when it did flash, it burnt slow until it went out. (exhaust fires in augmented engines rarely do much if any damage due to their normal operating temperatures being so much higher than a plain fire.)

Also remember if the engine pulls LOTS of vacuum (like when the inlet is sealed closed in the dirt) it's quite possible to draw oil through the carbon seals into the engine's gas-path while it spools down. Any engine's 'breather system' balances the internal pressure of the oil system, with internal/external air pressure of the engine to keep the oil from passing through the carbon-seals. Under a complete loss of airflow the engine's own 'suction' would likely pull oil out of the system into the compressor. Smoke in the cockpit typically comes from oil leaking into the compressor (ahead of the combustion chamber's fuel nozzles) where the bleed-air is extracted for the environmental system.

checksixx wrote:

The nozzle was open during the landing roll and I suspect that as the plane impacted the soft ground the pilot bumped the throttle up which closed the nozzle as you see it.

Doubt it;

The closed nozzle is likely to be a result of SEC.

If anything the throttle should have been placed in CUT-OFF prior to leaving the authorized taxi area.

I do suspect however; IF the engine had been in CUT-OFF prior to the inlet impacting the dirt, at least the nozzle should have at stayed open. The fuel-vapors should have been less as well. CUT-OFF would have prevented more fuel from entering the engine as it spun-down. The combination of nozzle swing to closed, and lots of fuel vapor could indicate the throttle was not place to CUT-OFF until after the aircraft stopped moving; perhaps to continue to provide hydraulic and electrical power through the event?

viper69 wrote:

The one picture after he's stopped looks like there's thrust coming out of the engine... Late attempt at a go around?

No WAY too late for that; the nozzle would have swung closed prior to leaving the prepared surface.

Remember the mass of the N1/N2 rotors spinning at idle speed. Even though there is no air entering the inlet, and combustion has stopped, the engine will continue to spin for some time. You can see the exhaust is full of visible debris, fuel (and/or oil) vapor. Even though you can see the exhaust it's not developing much thrust at that time.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Disclaimer: The author knows nothing of the actual event discussed in this form topic. Public news reports and/or photos/video viewed on the internet are the basis of the author's comments. All opinions of the author are purely that; opinion. The author merely chooses to express his experience and knowledge reverent to current events in the form of an "educated opinion".

I wonder if the EMSC flagged a no-go bit ball? Laughing

CETS had to be going crazy for whomever downloaded that engine?

Flameout, overtemp, stall/stagnation, transfer to hybrid mode/SEC, etc.

Heck, the after fire was possibly caused because the motor was trying to do a Low-E restart while N2 was spooling down?

I think if a -220 was in that jet it would have EXPLODED!

I will agree it looks like he used too much runway and couldnt stop if he wanted too

You engine guys are TOO funny. Thanks for the great education on what the engine goes through after eating turf.

If you ever want to talk -220, let me know. I think both ops an mx think those engines SUCK!

Cheers.

@ 1:19 in the video, watch the stabs bounce ... that is when the battery switch was taken from MAIN to OFF. GE's take forever to spool down!

He knows what he is doing after a mishap! I have to say good job! Thumb

Phuck it ... sh*t Happens! Lets move on!

This is nothing compared to the Buffoons on Capitol Hill right now!

call [Link pending approval] i think we are going to need a 107!! the radome is still attached to the bulkhead Smile

cwilt wrote:

call QA..... i think we are going to need a 107!! the radome is still attached to the bulkhead Smile

I was surprised that rather than the radome coming off the nose failed at the next bulkhead.

VarkVet wrote:

I think if a -220 was in that jet it would have EXPLODED!

ygbsm wrote:

If you ever want to talk -220, let me know. I think both ops an mx think those engines SUCK!

Come on guys; the Pratt -220s power most the FMS Viper fleet, and ALL the USAF Eagles except the last half of the Mud-Hens. Not to mention almost all the FMS Eagles.

The F100-PW-220 has a lower Class A Mishap rate (at 1.09/100K EFH), than the F110-GE-100 (@ 1.12) and only slightly lower than the GE-129 (@ 1.04) in USAF Vipers!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

You kidding right, ever since I have been around -220's I turned in my "engine mechanic" title and sewed on "engine borescope inspector" title. Phase, test cell, I-level. They just plain work. Now if I had a dollar everytime I had to pull a T4b for some stupid trend fault or chase a fan speed trend fault on 129's or 132's then I would be a little closer to retirement. Lets not even talk about the crappy aug fuel supply tube on GE's or changing the DEC. Bet it is easy on a 15 but on a 16 it isn't hard just annoying... Give me a DEEC. Or Aug fuel control on GE in the jet? No thanks, again not hard just annoying.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

VarkVet wrote:

I think if a -220 was in that jet it would have EXPLODED!

ygbsm wrote:

If you ever want to talk -220, let me know. I think both ops an mx think those engines SUCK!

Come on guys; the Pratt -220s power most the FMS Viper fleet, and ALL the USAF Eagles except the last half of the Mud-Hens. Not to mention almost all the FMS Eagles.

The F100-PW-220 has a lower Class A Mishap rate (at 1.09/100K EFH), than the F110-GE-100 (@ 1.12) and only slightly lower than the GE-129 (@ 1.04) in USAF Vipers!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Sorry, just because there are more of them does not make them better.
220s are just a terrible performing engine for the Viper from an operator standpoint. Why else were they consolidated OUT of the USAF Active Duty Fleet and concentrated at Nellis and Luke?
I wouldn't know firsthand from the mx side, but I've gotten the impression over the years that crewchiefs/engine dudes preferred GEs.
This could be an interesting debate. Has this battle been hashed out before in a thread?

Pretty simple, the Viper like our society got "fat". The 220 was no longer up to the task.

What engine in an F-16 has not been the cause of a class A mishap and has been certified to 6000cy?

Forum: F-16 News

ALANG F-16 overruns runway in Oshkosh