It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
So can we conclude that despite the higher use rate in more conflicts due to proliferation and the single engine (among other things); the F-16 is not a "death trap" nor more significantly prone to crash (according to statists) than the twin engined F-15?
So It makes sense but the final breakdown so you can see it is as follows.
USAF F-15 - 1138 built and 137 lost = 12% losses
USAF F-16 - 1245 built and 318 lost = 25.5% lossesp
Originally posted by iskander
...unless I’m not reading the numbers right.
That's a crock. The F-16 has an emergency power unit (powered by hydrazine) that provides power to the hydraulic system and the emergency electrical bus in the event of an engine failure or loss of the main and standby generators.
4 May 1995:
A F-16B from Rygge Airbase had a bird strike, crew ejected successfully.
Serial: 307 | Squadron 332| CN: 6L-7
23 March 1992:
A F-16A departing Banak Airbase lost its lost its engine in flight due to a turbine failure. Pilot Ejected safely.
Serial: 278 | 332 squadron | CN 6K-7
6 June 1989:
A F-16 caught fire in a hangar and where wrecked beyond repair in the fire, no injuries.
Serial: 685 | squadron 331 | CN 6K-57
5 July 1988:
A F-16A crashed at Mï¿½rsvik fjorden, possible bird strike. Pilot died.
Serial: 300 | Squadron: 334 | CN 6K-29
12 June 1985:
F-16B departing Banak Airbase had technical problems in the control system right after takeoff, crew ejected at low altitude, only one survivor.
Serial 303 | Squadron: 332 | CN 6L-3
13 November 1984:
A F-16B from Rygge Airbase had an engine failure before takeoff, pilot and "passenger" ran away with no injuries.
Serial: 301 | Squadron: 332 | CN 6L-1
The F-16 IS NOT to this day killing pilots due to some deficiency of design or manufacture. A couple of those happened early on. The rare F-16 pilot deaths today are due to stupid pilot tricks like flying a good airplane into the ground or into another airplane.
F-16 Mishap News
A blown nose-gear tire caused the Oct. 17 crash of an F-16 fighter during takeoff roll at Hill AFB, Utah, according to Air Force officials investigating the incident.
A crash that destroyed a $19.2 million F-16 over the summer was caused by the failure of two quarter-inch bolts, Air Force inspectors said this week.
Investigators have determined engine failure led to an F-16 crash on the Melrose Bombing Range in New Mexico March 21. The aircraft (#87-0330), assigned to the 27th Fighter Wing at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., was destroyed. The pilot experienced minor injuries after ejecting from the aircraft
Catastrophic engine failure caused the April 3 crash of a U.S. F-16DJ fighter near Misawa Air Base, Air Force investigators concluded.
Investigators have determined engine failure led to an F-16 crash over the Gulf of Mexico Dec. 13. The aircraft, assigned to the 27th Fighter Wing at Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., was on temporary duty at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., at the time of the accident. The pilot experienced minor injuries after ejecting from the aircraft.
Pilot jettisons fuel tanks to save F-16
Sunday, January 27, 2008
An F-16 at Cannon Air Force Base was forced to jettison its external tanks after takeoff on Saturday when the jet experienced a technical malfunction.
Several factors caused F-16 crash in Italy
Friday, January 18, 2008
An Air Force report blames the September 18th, 2007 crash of an F-16CG on a wide range of factors, including weather, plane malfunction and pilot action…
According to the report, a drip ring in the device that tells the aircraft its trajectory froze as the plane flew through thunderstorms over the base. The result was that plane computers continued to receive the same information, even as it climbed in altitude and lost air speed. The incorrect information also fooled the sophisticated aircraft from correcting itself in time to prevent an uncontrolled spin.
Originally posted by iskander
Even after taking out the error percentage, the picture is still pretty clear.
F-16 with its single engine suffered twice the crashed then F-15 with twin engines, unless I’m not reading the numbers right.
I'd say fulcrumflyer was talking about engine failure in anything other than the takeoff phase.
If you hit a bird on takeoff and your engine goes, and you don't have enough energy to turn around and land, then there isn't much you can do about it other than step out. It's just bad luck
As for the other reasons, I don't see anything that isn't common to other aircraft. Wire chaffing, CFIT, collision, the only thing that you can say for sure is that a catastropic failure of the F-16's engine is bad.
But this is true of any single engine aircraft. And we still haven't seen anything to suggest that the F-16 is fundamentally worse than any other single engine aircraft (or even multi-engined aircraft for that matter).
Your figures are wrong and I agreed with the new stats that westpoint and willard put forward since that the figures where based on the 1245 built as oppose to 2,231 actually built which changes the figures to.
Engine failure has been a issue but the operating environment is so hazardous in the military that it seems that all figures seem to be in the same range. The danger of flying a performance plane.
personally if the research has shown me anything is that it is more likely that an accident is more likely to happen due to a pilot error.
Originally posted by iskander
Actually I used your figures. If they are wrong, then they are wrong.
so the blame is not on me for making a simple mistake which I already posted a correction to.
Its your fault for not reading the thread properly case closed.
Is you argument at this point changed from the original post or is it just more narrow/clarified?
As I see it you are arguing the type of accidents that are happening to the F-16 and the fact that you find them to be worse then say the F-15 (easy comparison).
Cause at this point with the stats we have established the plane is not any more dangerous to its pilots then the F-15.
I want to make sure that we continue to understand the point being discussed or focused on. If it is the fact you are un happy with the types of accidents that we have to shift from that fact of defending the F-16s crash ratio compared to the F-15 and instead focus on types of crashes.
I'm actually looking forward to hearing what you have to say about the I-16 vs the Me-109 and how it ties into PE.
But I want to make sure that it doesn't turn into another huge debate like this one lol Anyways I must say I'm enjoying this and learning as well at the same time and hopefully we can continue in this manner.