US F-15 down in Lincolnshire UK

Looking at another picture, it looks like there may have been a forward component to the impact as well. The right tail is pushed forward.

At least one person near the school said it came down "back end first".

It was an F-15D, with one pilot on board. Witnesses claimed two chutes were seen, but the AF said that there was only one pilot on board. Witnesses also said that it sounded like the engines failed just before it came down.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Aircraft 86-182. "D" model, 1 soul aboard. Glad that back seat was empty, that aircraft is used for incentive flights! Driver had minor injuries associated with ejection, he'll be tacking on his ejection tie pin by tomorrow.

There have been reports of a "thwump" noise prior to ejection. A blade failure sounds like a full on explosion. I'm going with bird ingestion. Blades tend to fail at max load on T/O and the pictured I've seen seem to indicate the port engine is in an awful state while starboard appears relatively intact.

With respect to "a wing being 400 yards from a school." Wings don't just fall off, especially on an aircraft capable of g loads that would kill the driver before the plane even bent!

Reports of a "change of tone" from the engines, and that the aircraft flew for a mile or so after the pilot ejected. And that it was pretty close to a primary school.

www.bbc.co.uk...

originally posted by: PW229
With respect to "a wing being 400 yards from a school." Wings don't just fall off, especially on an aircraft capable of g loads that would kill the driver before the plane even bent!

Normally, I'd agree. But lately it seems more structural issues are cropping up in older aircraft. The Eagle has been G limited for awhile due to the longerons, and it APPEARS that the accident in Virginia may have been structural failure, on a non-maneuvering aircraft.

a reply to: solidshot

Jeebus wept that report is scary as all hell rolled up into a burrito and shoved up the wrong hole. IF (and that's a big ole IF) that driver ejected when witnesses are claiming and it came down 400yds from a primary school (for my American brothers and sisters, a Primary school is basically a giant Kindergarten) then he has a LOT of explaining to do and we narrowly averted an utter disaster in the UK today.

I shudder to think that it was not driver skill that put that plane down in a field but pure chance. Rule one of flying over populated areas, "If you have to, you fight that f*cker all the way down."

a reply to: PW229

It's pretty rare for a driver to not ride her down when near a populated area. I'd be shocked if he didn't.

I trust eyewitness reports about as far as I can throw a loaded F-15.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It would be nice to get some pictures of the front of the aircraft and see where the cockpit actually is and how intact it is. I suppose the reported change in pitch of the engines could be down to failed commands from the cockpit which could be catastrophic longeron failure and even detachment of the cockpit. That would explain the pilot punching out so early, no point trying to control something that isn't even strapped to your back anymore!

a reply to: PW229

Yeah it would. That was the first thing that popped into my head when they said training flight.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: PW229

I trust eyewitness reports about as far as I can throw a loaded F-15.

Absolutely. It was a source of constant amusement for me when VIPS/ Dignitaries/ locals saw an Eagle on the ground up close for the first time. I would bet a years pay that the first words out of their mouth were about the size of the beast, it is a huge aircraft as I'm sure you're aware.

So yes, agree 100%. Most people on the ground can't even get a grasp on the size of the F-15 let alone how far it flew between two points (ejection and ground impact).

From a witness report I've just heard on BBC News, the pilot ejected prematurely, and in my opinion (based on witnesses) was irresponsible. They [the witnesses] say the plane carried on for nearly a mile unmanned, almost hitting a school.

I hope this isn't the case, but if it is, I wouldn't let those pilots back in the air without some intensive training.

a reply to: PW229

Back when they ran Airman, or was it Air Force, magazine with the There I Was comics they were making fun of her size. They had pilots playing badmitton and sunning on her back in one, and carrying two F-16s under the wings in another.

There's a good reason they called her Rofan once upon a time. It's amazing she's as nimble as she is being such a beast.

a reply to: woogleuk

If the airplane was coming apart and uncontrollable, riding it in would accomplish.. .

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't see the uncontrollable bit, is that a confirmed fact?

I'm not trying to have a stab at the pilots, I'm sure if they were properly trained then they would have done all that they could have....

It just seemed a bit premature for bailing out, but if they are correct and it was uncontrollable, then I guess they have their reason.

a reply to: woogleuk

The only thing confirmed yet is that he crashed. But the F-15 has a known longeron issue that can cause that aircraft to break apart in flight, or to suffer damage rendering it uncontrollable.

It's FAR too early to say he was irresponsible, especially considering it's one eyewitness, and especially in aviation accidents eyewitness testimony is far from reliable.

originally posted by: woogleuk
a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't see the uncontrollable bit, is that a confirmed fact?

I'm not trying to have a stab at the pilots, I'm sure if they were properly trained then they would have done all that they could have....

It just seemed a bit premature for bailing out, but if they are correct and it was uncontrollable, then I guess they have their reason.

Well you've got a couple of experts here, me on the F-15 in particular and Zaph as an SME and it seems whatever happened to that aircraft the fact is the pilot (US fighter/ ground attack pilots are referred to as "drivers") was not in control of his ride for some time before impact. This could be caused by any number of factors but the two that stick out are engine failure and longeron failure. Longeron failure is catastrophic and could lead to complete detachment of the cockpit and a major engine failure could see bits of engine shrapnel severing control lines.

Zaph has stated clearly that a driver will fight that plane down over a populated area and I can confirm from experience that it is an unspoken rule in the fraternity, "You fight that f*cker all the way into the ground if you have to."

So what can we glean from this? If that driver didn't fight that beast into the ground then it was because he couldn't, not because he wouldn't.

RAF Lakenheath tweeted this:

Our pilots train for every emergency to mitigate damage and injury. We hope they never have to use it, but we're glad they have it.

Between prior experience, and that tweet, it tells me that he was not in control of this aircraft at all when he punched out. I've seen drivers killed in a crash before trying to ensure that their aircraft didn't hit a single building on the ground, near where they were heading.

Supposedly the aircraft was on fire at the time it went down.

originally posted by: countingdown
Im not far from there ...

Won't be hearing that over my house anymore !

i went past there coming home from RAF Coningsby, i thought my son was joking when he said he could see the tail of the plane so i didn't take much notice, i thought it was a farmer having a bonfire it was still on fire and thick black smoke. those F15's have been flying above my house for the last couple of days and just had a 'feeling' one would come down.

just glad no one was hurt.