U.S. Air Force F-15C crashes in Virginia

a reply to: buddah6

A couple of them have lately, but all were just after major maintenance, because they were put back together wrong. One didn't have a lock nut installed, one had the cables reversed, and I forget what the other one was.

a reply to: Zaphod58
This "C" model was going to maintenance rather than coming out of maintenance wasn't it?

As a second thought, if an emergency was declared while in cruise the pilot was outside of his safe bailout envelop anyway. He wasn't going to have a good result regardless of his decision to stay or eject. He may have stayed to make sure the plane came down in an open area...sorry I'm just guessing. I just hate when these things happen...it's personal!

a reply to: buddah6

He was getting a radar upgrade, probably to an AESA set.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you know what AESA's the Eagles are getting and the time line on fleet upgrade?

a reply to: Sammamishman

They've been upgrading them for the last few years. The E model upgrade is putting the AN/APG-82v1 in, starting this year. The first E model started flying with it out of Mountain Home this summer. The C models in Alaska started flying with the AN/APG-63v2 in 2000, and one aircraft up there has a v3 unit installed for testing. Current plans call for at least 48 C models to be upgraded to the v3 system. The rest of the fleet has the AN/APG-63v1, which is NOT an AESA system, but can be refitted with an AESA front end. It uses most of the same electronics. That system entered service in 2001, with up to 170 units ordered from Raytheon.

a reply to: Zaphod58

How do the -82's compare to the -77 & -81's in the F-22's and F-35's

a reply to: Sammamishman

The -82 is a nice set, but it's no comparison with the other two. It uses the APG-79 processor, as well as parts from the APG-63(V)3 system that the F-18 and E-18 respectively use. It's more of an off the shelf design, using proven parts to reduce reliability and developmental issues.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

When does a B-52 pull 9Gs? Or even 2 or 3Gs for that matter. They can't retire the F-15 without something to replace it, because by law they have to have a certain number of aircraft on the books, and Congress has to approve any retirement, or replacement.

i read a comment from B52 driver that the B52 airframe life will be shortened more if he flied NOE penetration mode training as opposed to high level flight..

if the USAF's old F-15s already that dangerous, it is criminal to keep flying them knowing the airframe is unsafe..

i thought the F15 line still open and producing F15E airframe for foreign countries ? why dont USAF buy some of them to upgrade their fleet ?

a reply to: buntalanlucu

It will be shortened from the 98 years old it will be now when it's retired, to about 70 or 80 years old. Nothing like the F-15s or any other fighters.

The F-15E doesn't perform the same mission as the C model, and wouldn't be as good at it. It's a different animal, despite being a similar airframe.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: buntalanlucu

It will be shortened from the 98 years old it will be now when it's retired, to about 70 or 80 years old. Nothing like the F-15s or any other fighters.

The F-15E doesn't perform the same mission as the C model, and wouldn't be as good at it. It's a different animal, despite being a similar airframe.

this is why i dont understand, why dont USAF add more F22 , if their old jets are unsafe.. money problem ? obsolete F22 design ? or because all the $$$ already alloted to the disasterous F35 procurement ?

a reply to: buntalanlucu

Because it would cost three times as much per aircraft if they have to restart the line to build them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've just read, on another website, that Boeing has admitted using smaller longerons on over 100 F15s. They used a 1 cm thick longeron when it should have used the specified 2.5 cm thick material.

Have you any more insight on this? If this is true, then some genius should be incarcerated or take a ride or two in the affected aircraft!

a reply to: buddah6

That's what they found after the crash in Missouri. Something like 84 aircraft were retired completely because of it. It affected over 200 aircraft. They had fixes for the rest affected.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Do you think the Virginia crash was a longeron failure? I have that feeling but haven't any proof just a gut feeling.

a reply to: buddah6

That was my initial feeling, and I've learned through the years when it comes to aviation matters, listen to that voice. My gut says it is, because not much causes an accident so fast the pilot can't get out.

Reports of two F/A 18's down now as well in western pacific?

www.navy.mil...

a reply to: Zaphod58
US Air Force F-15 in-flight breakup animation from older accident. That would have been a wild ride !

a reply to: 727Sky

He didn't eject in that one either, IIRC. The seat detected open air under it, and the conditions were right for the systems to activate, so they did.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Has anyone made a thread about this www.navy.mil... anywhere? Two F-18Cs crashing in the Western Pacific?

a reply to: Araqiel

They commented in thread, but no thread about it. Go for it.