ATFS_CrashThe police are investigating, but have found nothing to go on:D
Brovo
He is in a of **** now, because of his theft.
ATFS_Crashre
Regrettably this might be a feather Iran’s hat.:rolleyes: The video is not surprising, a small slow flying UAV could easily go undetected (as it could be interpreted as a bird), with a little direct threat to the group, however indirectly a small UAV is a considerable threat to the group.
I do not think there is any international law preventing a hostile aircraft from approaching the carrier, but I do not think there is any law preventing the carrier from legitimately defending itself.
I do not know if the video is legitimate or not, but it looks like it could be. However it is still questionable that it was the carrier that they claim it was, and it is questionable that it was shot by an Irainan UAV.
It looks like a E-2 and A-6 on the cat.
I am more skeptical of the video after viewing it a few more times. I think it might be from shakedown sea trail, in that case I doubt it would be anywhere near Iran. Perhaps I am being fooled by some perspective thing.
Look at the wake of the ship it looks like it is doing a hard turn. The wake seems much more severe on one side of the deck then on the other, also the angle of the wake to the direction of aircraft carrier seems to be very different like it is in a very sharp turn. The deck looks like it is severely banked to me. I question a carrier doing turns like that in a combat area unless it is being fired on. I could be wrong, I am not a Navy expert.
There is a lot of planes on the deck, but strangely there seems to be very little personnel and other equipment on the deck. It is not what I would expect to see on an aircraft carrier deployed in a combat area. It looks more like a piece time shot. It’s hard tell at this resolution. I could be wrong, I am not a Navy expert.
Lightndattic
“it could be any stock footage of a Nimitz carrier”
I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I think it might be stock US footage from US aircraft observing the shakedown sea trials of a carrier.
ATFS_CrashMy list
Les Chevaliers du ciel… In Norway it`s called “Sky Fighters”.
That`s one ****ty movie, if you ask me:mad:
Please post some blockbuster movie titles worth seeing, if anyone have
someone in their mind:) The only good fightermovie I`ve seen has to be
“Topgun”. A bit unrealistic, but a lot of entertainment!!
In my opinion the best all-time fighter movie is the Blue Max, though it is largely drama, but very realistic. My second favorite is the Battle of Britain, it is very good historically. They both have the best aviation combat scenes I have seen the media produce, though they are not perfect, it is still jaw-dropping in my opinion. In my opinion they are both worth viewing in high-definition. I wish I got to see them on the big-screen.
I think The Great Waldo Pepper is also mentionable.
The rest of my lists range from great to mentionable but interesting. Some are corny.
“Hell’s Angels” (the Howard Hughes version) was the first good fighter movie in my opinion. It is black-and-white and silent, but for its time it was great. Prospectively it is still is a good movie (In a reminiscent way).
I think Top Gun is very good and cool, however it seems somewhat immature to me. I would recommend the documentary, “top gun the real story” which is also sold under at least one other name. I think the documentary is much better than the Hollywood version.
Stealth is a little cool but it is so immature and so far off technically and so unrealistic that it takes most of the enjoyment out of it for me, but it is funny and has great graphics.
Flyboys has great graphics, I think it’s worth seeing. I think it is a good movie, but it is immature. There are parts of it that are very good and realistic, but they kept screwing it up in my opinion. In my opinion it could have been the best fighter movie in history if they kept it more adult/intelligent and realistic. I think it missed its mark by a longshot and only ended up being a fair movie when it had potential of being an excellent movie.
Now to stray slightly from the subject a little.
“Catch-22” is my favorite movie comedy. It is a deep and dark comedy. “Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964), “1941” (1979) is entertaining.
“Mephis Belle”, “Command Decision” (Clark Gable1948), “Twelve O’Clock High” (Gregory Peck 1949), “Bridges at Toko Ri”, “Strategic air command”, “Thirty seconds over Tokyo”, “The Aviator” (2004), “Tora! Tora! Tora!” (1970), Midway (1976), “Failsafe” (1964), “Dive Bomber” (Errol Flynn 1941), “Wing and a Prayer” (1944), “A Guy Named Joe” (1944), “Test Pilot” (1938), “The Hunters” (1958 Robert Mitchum) (a little dry),”The Flight of the Phoenix” (1965). “Pearl Harbor” (2001) has a great graphics, the planes look realistic photographically, but Hollyweird pushes things too far, how the planes flew were very unrealistic, the patterns the formations the separation ect… the movie seems a little immature to me.
A corny comedy mainly for the kids. It is as if Walt Disney backed the movie. “Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines” (1965). I still like it as an adult, note Benny Hill is the firemen.
I have seen the Blue Max and Catch-22 many times. Each time I see them, I see them deeper and from more perspectives. I do not normally like the drama part of a movie, but I really like how the characters are realistically acting in their own interests and have realistic perspectives, despite their vast opinions and perspectives on things.
It is a mad mad world (not related to aircraft) is the only time I have seen a better comedy cast in a movie then Catch-22.
I think George Peppard is a great actor in the Blue Max. If you think he is cool in the the A-team, you gotta love this movie if you like aircraft. I think the A-team paid his room and board, but significantly lowered his status as an actor. I think the A-team was cool but immature.
I liked the series Twelve O’clock High, even though it was so bad and corny it did not stay on the air very long, but at least it was about aircraft. Baa Baa Black Sheep overshadows it vastly.
I like to watch Tora! Tora! Tora! With my father, it was confusing the first time he said he flew that plane, when it was supposed to be a Zero. I think they were using A-6s to stand in for the Zeros. The way my father says it, it sounds like he flew a Zero.:D
ATFS_Crashogami musashi
Pioneers of Survival Dr. John Paul Stapp
To reign him in, Stapp was promoted to the rank of major, reminded of the 18 G limit of human survivability, and told to discontinue tests above that level.
(John Stapp holds the sled record at 46.2 Gs; he busted the myth some of you still believe)
ogami musashi
“i just did imply the g suit did have nothing to do with bones acceleration resistance”
Whether you realize it or not by mentioning the G. suit the way you did, you are implying that a G. suit reduces neck injury.
Your name does not seem to be English, which leads me to think perhaps part or perhaps all of the problem is communication. It is hard enough trying to communicate with someone in your own language, but it is even more challenging and problematic to communicate in another language.
ogami musashi
“fighter pilots are all in very similar position during maneuvers”
False. If a pilots posture is correct you can withstand much higher Gs and still be able to pilot the aircraft. If you are slumped over foreword to read gauges or operate additional controls, you are more susceptible to Gs. Also if you have your “head on a swivel” you are more susceptible to Gs.
ogami musashi
“you’re making a fuss of nothing”
On the contrary, you should heed your own criticism, and apply it to yourself.
ogami musashi
“By the way my 22 figure went from a USAF langley research paper on G resistance of fighter pilots in the sitting position.”
You seem to be misinterpreting it, and misrepresenting it, if that is the case.
By the way my figures come from the USAF.
So Edward A. Murphy does not know what he talking about? So John P. Stapp never held the worlds record of Gs on a rocket Sled? So I guess all those movies of John P. Stapp with concentric rings around his back and neck as he is on the end of the run of the decelerator was just for entertainment? You are ignoring Edward A. Murphy and John P. Stapp’s data, so you are implying all of it is a forgery.
Well that is what you are implying by insisting on the 22 G. figure. You accuse me of being insulting, yet you fail to see how your implications are insulting. Hypocrisy.
You are ignoring the facts and you are making insulting implications. There is no wonder why I am suspicious of you playing the flamer game.
ogami musashi
“they’re not lying”
That is not really true. Some fighters (like the F-16) are designed with semi reclining seats to increase the pilots G. tolerance. Some late and post WWII aircraft the pilots flew in a prone position, part of the reason was to increase the pilots tolerance to Gs.
ogami musashi
“I’m well aware of flight dynamics thank you, and by the way i was not talking about plane resistance, but pilot resistance to new fighter that pull G’s more rapidly than previous one, wich is sensed by pilot as “fairly violent envirronement”.”
You do not seem to understand as well as you think you do. Once again you have missed the points, I was making several. When people refer to as modern fighters not being able to handle sustained Gs it has little or nothing to do with structural integrity, it is more of a matter of energy and friction.
As I discussed before; a rapid onset of G. can work against you and you can work for you. If it’s unexpected it can sometimes be a problem because pilots mind and body does not have time to adapt, but a trained pilot in good physical condition can normally handle a rapid onset to 9 Gs. If the rapid onset is not sustained for very long, then even most untrained people in poor condition can handle it. It’s just not a matter of rapid onset, it is a matter of duration, as well as other factors. Like a child you keep on wanting to oversimplify things.
You are so ambiguous and sloppy it is hard to tell what you mean, but either way I take it, I see problems with what you say. I was commenting on your quote. ogami musashi
“Recent planes can pull 9g’s in less than one second wich is very hard to “sustain”.
Most modern fighters have no problem structurally sustaining 9 Gs; when they refer to fighters not been able to maintain 9 Gs they are usually referring power limitations and fuel consumption. If you are trying to say fighter pilots cannot handle sustaining 9 Gs because of rapid onset of G.; you are once again wrong; like I have already established most if not all fighter pilots are trained and selected to have an adequate 9 G. tolerance, irregardless of rate of onset.
You need to be more intelligent in your posts, otherwise people will not treat you intelligently. You just make a short shallow ambiguous attacks, and you ignore the overwhelming facts of others.
Analogy; it is like people that are paranoid and think people are avoiding them, often their fears make them start acting so strange that people do start avoiding them. In a way it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you are unable or unwilling to be concise and intelligent, then I see no reason to keep spoon-feeding you like a little child. You seem like you are playing games, but perhaps you have other issues.
You asked questions after I already explained. You should read the posts and the links and do your best to comprehend them, otherwise I will not take you seriously.
Perhaps you are an intelligent, well-intentioned person and there is a language barrier, I cannot tell by your posts. Your posts are very suspect. You are derailing my attempt to get intelligent answers, either by your rhetoric and by the squabbling.
ATFS_Crashre
robban
Variables or not. I’m sorry for being sceptical about this. A human head weighs around 5kg. So at 20 G’s it weighs 100kg. And so 150-200kg at 30-40 G. And this is without wearing a helmet! And for someone to survive 100G’s sounds crazy, but I guess if the person is lying down, it might be possible. Anyway, it all seems very unlikely.
I do not blame you for being skeptical. You have some good arguments and points and seem to have a fairly good understanding.
You hear of Murphy’s Law?
“Pulling 40 Gs”
I saw a video of a guy a few days ago of a guy pulling 8 Gs holding Nuts magazine strait out in front of him (arms strait) as a challenge and a prank. He estimated the magazine weighed the equivalent of a phone book. It is hard telling how much the weight of his arms added. It likely took 100 to 200 pounds of force to hold the magazine like that. Unfortunately he deleted the video, I thought it was pretty funny.
You are correct in saying that body position is a factor. I doubt people could survive much more than 50 Gs (instantaneous) in the upright position. I doubt a person could survive much more than 100 Gs (instantaneous) in the horizontal.
When we say lying down, that is not quite technically correct either, it is an oversimplification. It is normally correct to say lying down, but to be more correct in a position that puts less stress on your body and that tends to be in a position with more surface area in contact with the resisting object, is a position that you are less likely to have major organ damage and fractures in a high G. incident. Lying down in a Wright Flyer flying horizontally into a brick wall would be lousy. Lying down as your body hits the ground in a skydiving accident would be more appropriate. Like Einstein said it is all relative.
Think about all the sky divers that have had their parachutes fail, yet survive. I think in most cases terminal velocity is around 90 miles an hour with the streamer (a badly collapsed canopy). I think there has been at least one case a pilot or crewmember bailed out at high altitude with no parachute at all, yet he survived. I think terminal velocity without a parachute is around 120 -150 miles an hour.
You are correct in thinking it would be difficult for person to hold up their head, especially with a helmet on. That is why the US military has been slow to adopt a helmet mounted eye reader. The U.S. military has even toyed with brainwave sensors to detect when a pilot loses consciousness (to automatically turn on the autopilot), there is even early testing with mind control. To have such heavy headgear can be very fatiguing, especially when pulling heavy Gs. The weight of the standard helmet can be fatal in an accident, let alone ones with more advanced features.
Unlike the guy holding the Nuts magazine is using mostly his muscles. A pilot in proper posture most of the weight from the head should be on the spine, not muscle. So a pilot with good discipline can hold up their head even under extreme Gs, the downside is when gravity becomes excessive; it can collapse your spine, instead of your muscles just failing.
It is like the people that instinctively brace themselves for a crash, in a minor crash they can prevent minor injuries, but in a major crash there is actually more damage because the instinctive bracing is for a person to have their arms and legs braced and locked. If you know you are going to crash, you should keep your legs and your arms slightly bent. If you instinctively brace for a crash you are more likely to have broken legs, arms, back, ECT… If you brace yourself instinctively you more likely to break bones, if you use proper brace positions your muscles will absorb a lot of the energy.
There is a lot of basic science in learning how to survive in combat and in a crash. Even if you are in a car it is important to wear a seatbelt. Wearing a seatbelt is to your advantage for many reasons, the most obvious is that it keeps you in the vehicle; the second is the seat belts are usually softer than having your face smashed into the windshield and having the steering column shoved through your heart. The deeper physics of why seatbelts are so effective is that if you are fastened to the vehicle then you deceleration with the vehicle, which is more slowly, because of crumple zones, it takes time to crumple thusly reducing the G. loading. If you do not wear seat belts you can continue moving until after the vehicle stops so when you do stop, it is much more sudden, thusly the G. forces are much higher, thusly you absorb the energy, not your car. Another advantage to seatbelts is if you hit rough road or if you are in aircraft and hit turbulence, the seatbelt keeps you seated at the controls so you can maintain or regain control of the vehicle quicker.
Medicine, piloting, safety are all sciences, but they are not always exact there is a little bit of art and luck involved. When luck is involved, use your mind and science to try to shift the luck more into your favor.
ATFS_CrashGForce
By the way for any newcomers. G in the context we are using it, is the force of gravity. The force of gravity is changed by change in speed/direction.
GLOC = Gravity induced Loss Of Consciousness
ogami musashi
“the neck breaks having a g suit or not”
Hogwash. It seems almost a waste of time to respond to your post, but for the benefit of others I will. This is to clarify and educate.
Remember I am not talking about Hollyweird or any other type of hype. I am in the realms of reality, I ask any responses to try to do the same.
The G. suit has nothing to do with preventing the neck from breaking. The G. suit raises the blood pressure by compressing the lower part of the body. The G. suit reduces the odds of a pilot from blacking out from the drain of blood from the brain during high positive G. maneuvers.
ogami musashi
“At 22Gz, the neck breaks”
Hogwash. There is no exact predictable point that a person’s neck can break. I have seen victims that have broke their neck under less than five Gs. I have seen victims without broken necks that survived over 100Gs.
Like engineers sarcastically say; “it depends on the variables”.
The angle of the G force, the position, the body type, the duration, ect…
Why do you think pilots and passengers are taught “crash positions”? If you brace instinctively for a crash, you increase the odds of having broken bones. It is statistically proven that Drunks (and other DUIs, seizure victims, and people that fall asleep) are less likely to be as severely injured, because they do not instinctively brace for a crash. If you assume the proper crash position you are less likely to be injured then someone who is unconscious, inebriated, or that is in an instinctive crash position.
Why do you think they teach you how to land at jump school? How you land can absorb much of the G, but it also teaches you how to absorb the G. in a manner that is less destructive to the body.
ogami musashi
“In the early 90’s a russian pilot pulled a cobra near supersonic, add a 15Gz increase very sharp then went uncouncious and crashed.”
Do not try to equivocate one situation to another. I think that case had more to do with duration. I know of crash victims that have remained conscious above 50 Gs (instantaneously/peak).
ogami musashi
“it depends on the rate of increase in Gz.”
That is a factor, but there are many more. Like engineers sarcastically say; “it depends on the variables”.
ogami musashi
“Recent planes can pull 9g’s in less than one second wich is very hard to “sustain”
Most fighters would have an easy time structurally withstanding and sustaining 9 Gs without any harm. The reason a lot of fighters cannot withstand sustained Gs has more to do with power and fuel, Gs inadvertently consume a lot of power of an aircraft to doing maneuvers. When you see pilots and doing S turns before a landing the as bleeding off the speed by increasing the distance and by increasing the friction by increasing the G.
————————
Some pilots under some conditions can GLOC relatively easy, other pilots and other conditions can have an entirely different results. Do not try to oversimplify things too much, sometimes when you over simplify things you can misrepresent the truth and the facts.
GLOC in flight. (2 examples) Warning: Explicit Language
GLOC Centrifuge Training
Note the stalky guy I call Superman, has exceptional skills, body type to tolerate G. forces. Not many pilots can talk and act so normally at 9 Gs, and he knows it, just look at the grin on his face and his attitude.It is normal to grunt and strain while G straining, though his expression, voice and breathing shows it is not much strain to him.
———————————————————-
Do not try to bluff me with hyperbole. I usually know more then I say, whereas some people frequently say more than they know.
Perhaps you really believe the shallow hype, if so then I am partly sorry. I do not what the motives behind your post, but it looks suspicious.
I did not come here to play games. I often ignore people that mess with me, but often I will slap them back with facts, particularly if a person is mean-spirited.
ATFS_CrashThanks
I found F-16 83-1132 in the f-16.net database. It even carried WA markings from 88 to 92. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_fighting_falcon_airframe-1462.html
Its a block 25 which got their engines upgraded from -200 to 220E…
Thanks.
Anyone know of a public source, were I could get the F-15 mishap report and or post mishap photos documenting the damage from F-15 mishap?
ATFS_Crashre
eagle
“Very impressive. Unfortunately, I cant read the F-16 serial. If you know the serials of the planes, you can search for pics or tell the exact engine model.”
It was USAF. Tail is WA I think the number is 83132. I am not sure about the 83, as it is small.
I asked at F-16.net and several other places online, no response. Their data baseseems incomplete.
Another problem is I don’t know the date of the mishap. The engine that went into the aircraft is not necessarily what it had during the mishap.
Lightndattic
“From the video I can tell it’s a PW F100 powered F-16, but as for which model F-100, I can’t tell.”
I thought is was a PW, but I am not sure.
martinez “
Generally, military aircraft structures are known to have safety factor 1.5, what means by pulling 9G the airframe will hold up to 13.5G before disintegration. There were many cases where pilots exceeded 9G, for instance 11-14G permanently damaging wing spars and ribs and after a lucky landing aicrafts were written-off, unreparable.”
The story I heard was that it was a write off. I was told it was so badly damaged they were amazed the control surfaces didn’t jam. Unfortunately I don’t think I ever saw the damage. That is part of the reason I would like to see some photos or video of it. That and the photos would make it easier to understand and believe.
I can assure you it was well over 9 Gs. As I made clear in my post and on the video I am not clear exactly how many. I was under the impression the plane was certified for 9G, just as the pilot. 😉
A plane can hold together above it’s rating, but the longer, the more frequent and the more intense the more likely the failure. (In other words the more you push it, the more likely failure is) Often there will be damage before there is catastrophic failure. There is no exact G loading an aircraft will breakup at, it depends on a lot of factors like if it was lightly loaded, like on this training mission. This is real life, not Hollyweird.
I think he got away with it as a matter of luck. The airframe likely had low hours, and since it was only momentary he got away with it, kind of, hehe.
One of the reasons US military pilots are discouraged from doing cobra like maneuvers is it can damage the airframe.
martinez
“So what happened to the on-board flight-data recorder?”
Good question, I don’t know. I think data recording was OK. I don’t know if the G figures were from the data recorder or from estimating the damage. I suspect the first. I never was told the exact figure or how they came to it. Flight-data recorders tend to hold up under G better and recover quicker then video recorders.
martinez
“It`s a hoax if you ask me.”
Lets just say I don’t think so. I don’t blame you for being skeptical.
Listen to the pilots voice and breathing. It is unlikely all of that is from just pulling 9 Gs from a pilot that is trained for 9 or more Gs. I doubt it is just from seeing his life flash before his eyes. My experience is that panic tends to take longer to set in under those conditions. I doubt I would have anxiety until a few minutes later or more likely after landing.
martinez
“the engine survived because not ingesting much of that tree at all”
It doesn’t take much of a tree to wipe out an engine. The video doesn’t show it well but I saw high quality paper photo of the shot showing the intake, and there was considerable blade damage. It is a wander it was able to run without vibrating apart. All it takes is one blade to go, and it is like a domino effect, they just shed off like an explosion.
Sign In
