Ah, yes, the Cornfield Bomber F-106, in Montana. Already did a piece on that, for Aviation History. But bring ’em on, if you have any others. So far, I have…
Margaret Horton
B-24 that flew empty from Florida to Mexico
F8 Crusader pilot who fell 15,000 feet and survived
Pardo’s Push, plus Risner’s
WWI observer fell out, fell back in
Lancaster chuteless bailout into snowdrift
Various takeoffs with wings still folded
C337 that disintegrated at altitude, passenger lived when cabin fell into tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LANSA_Flight_508
LANSA Flight 508 departed Lima’s Jorge Chávez International Airport just before noon on Christmas Eve on its way to Iquitos, Peru, with a scheduled stop at Pucallpa, Peru. The aircraft was flying at Flight Level 210 (about 21,000 ft / 6,400 m above Mean Sea Level) when it encountered an area of thunderstorms and severe turbulence. There was evidence the crew decided to continue the flight despite the hazardous weather ahead, apparently due to pressures related to meeting the holiday schedule.
At about 12:36 p.m. local time, a lightning strike ignited the fuel tank in the right wing, which quickly led to structural failure of the aircraft. As the plane disintegrated, a 17-year-old German Peruvian teenager, Juliane Koepcke, fell down into the Amazon rainforest 2 miles (3 km) below, strapped to her seat. Despite sustaining a broken collar bone, a deep gash to her right arm, a concussion and an eye injury in the fall, she was able to trek through the dense Amazon jungle for 10 days, until she was rescued by local lumbermen, who subsequently took her by canoe back to civilization. It was later discovered that as many as 14 other passengers also survived the initial fall from the disintegrated plane but were unable to seek help and died while awaiting rescue.
I’ve always wanted a droop-snoot P-38 fitted with the P-38M “second seat” extended cockpit.
A 3-place Lightning… if only I had US$4,000,000 or so just lying around.
Specifically, FM-2 Wildcats built by General Motors (Eastern Aircraft Division).
The extra-tall tail fin is a dead give-away, as that was the only model with that tail.
did,nt a F.100 shoot it,s self down by diving after shooting then pulled up into the shells!
regards
jack…
Grumman F-11 Tiger (F11F-1 since the incident was before October 1962):
http://www.aerofiles.com/tiger-tail.html
On Sep 21, 1956 Grumman test pilot Tom Attridge shot himself down in a graphic demonstration of two objects occupying the wrong place at the same time—one being a Grumman F11F-1 Tiger [138260], the other a gaggle of its own bullets..
It happened on the second run of test-firing four 20mm cannon at Mach 1.0 speeds. At 20,000′ Attridge entered a shallow dive of 20°, accelerating in afterburner, and at 13,000′ pulled the trigger for a four-second burst, then another to empty the belts. During the firing run the F11F continued its descent, and upon arriving at 7,000′, the armor-glass windshield was struck, but not penetrated, by an object..
Attridge throttled back to slow down and prevent cave-in of the windshield, flying back to Grumman’s Long Island field at 230 mph. He radioed that a gash in the outboard side of the right engine’s intake lip was the only apparent sign of damage other than for the glass, but that 78 percent was maximum available power without engine roughness occurring..
Two miles from base, at 1,200′ with flaps and wheels down, it became evident from the sink rate that the runway could not be gained on 78 percent power. Attridge applied power and said “the engine sounded like it was tearing up.” It then lost power completely. He pulled up the gear and settled into trees less than a mile short of the runway, traveling 300 feet and losing a right wing and stabilizer in the process. Fire broke out, but, despite injuries, Attridge managed to exit the plane and get away safely, to be picked up by Grumman’s rescue helicopter.
Examination of the F11F established there were three hits—in the windshield, the right engine intake, and the nose cone. The engine’s inlet guide vanes were struck, and a battered 20mm projectile was found in the first compressor stage..
How did this happen? The combination of conditions reponsible for the event was (1) the decay in projectile velocity and trajectory drop; (2) the approximate 0.5-G descent of the F11F, due in part to its nose pitching down from firing low-mounted guns; (3) alignment of the boresight line of 0° to the line of flight. With that 0.5-G dive, Attridge had flown below the trajectory of his bullets and, 11 seconds later, flew through them as their flight paths met..

As the link Mike J posted says:
The pilot initiated a right 150 to 180 degree turn reaching about 200 feet above the ground. He was attempting to neutralize the controls in preparation for a normal approach for landing when he realized the controls were “locked and unmovable in any direction.” The pilot stated that the helicopter remained in the same rate of turn with the same collective pitch and cyclic input as when he had initiated the turn. The helicopter maintained the same arc through the turn and descent until it impacted the ground. The pilot further stated that he was reaching to activate the emergency hydraulic switch at impact.
There are also these threads about the same aircraft…
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1994198#post1994198 5 February 2013
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=120079 19 October 2012
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=118734 14 August 2012
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=109835 17 June 2011
And from post #4 on here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=96614 27 December 2009
And as I said in October 2012…
I’m not getting on you for not finding the earlier threads… the broke-d!ck search (mis)function on this board couldn’t find either thread… despite the search term
Quote:
B-17 “All American”
being in the title of the first link I posted.I had to get the links from Google!
Do we need a sticky with the list of threads about this aircraft?
Interesting thanks for posting.
This thread was also about this incident.
Which was started 17 June 2011.
There are also these threads about the same aircraft…
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=120079 19 October 2012
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=118734 14 August 2012
And from post #4 on here: http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=96614 27 December 2009
And as I said in October 2012…
‘m not getting on you for not finding the earlier threads… the broke-d!ck search (mis)function on this board couldn’t find either thread… despite the search term
B-17 “All American”
being in the title of the first link I posted.
I had to get the links from Google!
Which is, of course, why yet another thread on the same plane was started AFTER this thread! http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=122414 10 February 2013
I think the Devastators suffered the highest loss rate of all naval types. It was virtually a one-way ticket every time. I think the mission you are referring to is the one where almost all of them were shot down without a single successful bomb drop, but because the Japanese Zeros were then out of place the few surviving TBDs were able to sneak in and sink 3 unprotected carriers.
No. The Devastators (TBD) had drawn the Zeroes down low, so when (by complete accident) the Dauntlesses (SBD) and Wildcats (F4F-4) arrived high overhead they were able to begin their attacks completely unmolested.
The 3 IJN carriers (and a 4th later the same day) were sunk completely by USN bombs (actually the bombs simply turned then into blazing wrecks) and Japanese torpedoes fired from destroyers (to scuttle them when the Japanese retreated).
No USN air-dropped torpedo hit any IJN carrier that day.
I learnt the hard way not to providing links to Fb pages and also Photobucket.People without accounts cannot see them.Bit counterproductive that.
If I posted a link* to my Photobucket account every one of you could see it… as I have everything set to “public”.
I simply don’t put anything I consider private there.
* Actually, there are quire a number of my posts on this forum that have image-links to items in my PhBkt account… and every one can see them.
However, only those I have “friended” can see my Facebook account, as I do have the security settings there screwed down tight. Its that privacy thing… FB sells all the information you don’t make private.
The CVAs were to have been fitted with a pair of 250ft stroke length BS6 catapults each, which according to all the figures I’ve seen would have been on a par with the cats fitted to the US Forrestal/Kitty Hawk classes, which operated F-14s. Wether the political will to release finances to buy them would have been present is another matter, in this scenario the RN would still have a larger fleet of relatively new F-4K Phantoms, so upgrades for them would have been the best the RN could hope for in the 80s. With a decent radar and skyflash (80s) and AMRAAM (90s-) the F-4K would still be a viable fighter into the 21st century. Cross decking US tomcats would have been a regular occurence though, if only to drop hints to the government…;)
Personally, I think the late 1980s would have seen either development of a navalized Tornado based on the F3 (possibly in a true multi-role version to replace both Phantom and Bucc) or an agreement to purchase F/A-18Cs & F/A-18Ds.
Either way, 1995 would have seen retirement of the RN’s last Phantoms and Buccs.
A couple of hacks
TF-102D with French trimmings – the TF-102A is already very Rafale-like.
TF-102A nose on the Lightning T4 – yes, I replace the big mouth tandem two seater with a pointed tandem two seater front end. 🙂
TF-102 has side-by-side seating, not tandem.
Tandem (or in tandem) is an arrangement where a team of machines, animals or people are lined up one behind another, all facing in the same direction… like the BAE Hawk or T-38.
Indian Navy sending out an RFP to purchase 120 naval helos for about $6 billion.
It will be interesting to see if the Indian Requirement includes the ability to operate STOVL Aircraft?
Why (and HOW) would a requirement that is solely for purchasing helicopters that will be operated from ships include anything about requiring those helicopters to somehow operate STOVL aircraft?
So it’s just showing the ground it is friendly by wiggling its tail?
😀
I’ve never seen the page self-refresh before.
Are you sure you haven’t picked up some malware on your computer?
I’ve never seen the page self-refresh before.
Are you sure you haven’t picked up some malware on your computer?