F-15 Ride Along Backseater Punches Out

BobDDuck said:
Except the part where the engine failed all the time!
Click to expand...

I dunno, I mean fighters have pretty fickle motors. You'll 100% lose a couple over a normal flying career, some of us more than that. Probably because we don't baby them like a company that wants to, like, make money and maybe save wear and tear :) Though I have definitely flown with a few CA's that have had more than one real v1'ish cut in the wild.......or maybe somewhere along the lines of V2/whatever segment climb that is. I'm on the bench right now, but when I come back in a couple months from now, I'm just waiting for that big old boomer era bus to shat itself at the worst time on me. Always waiting for that....it's like some weird pavlovian response where I expect some master caution light or red light as soon as I'm airborne. In other news one of our homies successfully ejected out in the VACAPES range today. This morning was a good emotional roller coaster hearing from old Oceana friends (probably standing at the duty desk at the time) "there's one down in the W-386K, sounds like a Ram's jet", and then a little later "he's in the water" and then, "he's been picked up ok". Tall beers for that young lad
 
Last edited:
I find it a bit odd that the pilot is continuing to taxi after the ejection. I know he/she isn't going to stop and pick up the tossed back seater...but...I dunno.
 
HeyEng said:
I find it a bit odd that the pilot is continuing to taxi after the ejection. I know he/she isn't going to stop and pick up the tossed back seater...but...I dunno.
Click to expand...

How many times is he ever going to be able to taxi around with no canopy in his career? 😂
 
derg said:
“You’re not my real dad, you can’t tell me what to do, GEORGE!” *click* *PAAAAAAAAPH*
Click to expand...
1755794959700.png
 
Oxman said:
Don't they get a briefing on what to do and NOT to do before the flight?
Click to expand...

Yesterday I spoke with a friend that has gone on an incentive ride. They were briefed that handles/ levers/ knobs with a tiger stripe (black & yellow) can not be reset, so once they activate it there's no turning back.
 
Springer said:
Not sure if you are referring to the F-4 or F-15 motors but the J79 very reliable and don't recall any engine failures in any of my squadrons.
Click to expand...

Referencing the J79. Back when I still thought I wanted to be an aerospace engineer, I took a propulsion systems class and we dug into the the engine a bunch. There were lots of problems, especially with the earlier production models, with compressor stalls due to high AOA and airflow interruptions. The compressor stalls often led to shedding of blades, which would destroy the engine. I can't remember the exact years, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a very high rate of failure occurring. Engines were lasting less than 700 hours on average. There was a really cool (declassified) report that the Air Force did, instructing accident investigators how to investigate accidents specific to the J79-17 because they had become so common. I know I have a copy somewhere, but I can't find it.

Ironically, 15 years later I was flying with a bunch of retired guard guys (in the 121 world) who had flown the F4 and they were constantly talking about how unreliable the engines had been. Several of them had red anodized Martin-Baker watches.

It sounds like that towards the end of the program the engines had gotten much better though.
 
BobDDuck said:
Referencing the J79. Back when I still thought I wanted to be an aerospace engineer, I took a propulsion systems class and we dug into the the engine a bunch. There were lots of problems, especially with the earlier production models, with compressor stalls due to high AOA and airflow interruptions. The compressor stalls often led to shedding of blades, which would destroy the engine. I can't remember the exact years, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a very high rate of failure occurring. Engines were lasting less than 700 hours on average. There was a really cool (declassified) report that the Air Force did, instructing accident investigators how to investigate accidents specific to the J79-17 because they had become so common. I know I have a copy somewhere, but I can't find it.

Ironically, 15 years later I was flying with a bunch of retired guard guys (in the 121 world) who had flown the F4 and they were constantly talking about how unreliable the engines had been. Several of them had red anodized Martin-Baker watches.

It sounds like that towards the end of the program the engines had gotten much better though.
Click to expand...
Our motors were J79-GE-15's. No issues. First time on the boom of a '97 at 24:
 

Attachments

  • KC-971.jpg
    KC-971.jpg
    40.2 KB · Views: 18
Did the back seater get a bad case of anxiety and claustrophobia and just wanted to get out? If so, then that is kind of hilarious.
 
If I remember, the Air Force had a mechanic end up on the ceiling of a TabVee shelter when a seat fired. Needless to say this individual ended up a bit shorter
images.jpeg
 
BobDDuck said:
Referencing the J79. Back when I still thought I wanted to be an aerospace engineer, I took a propulsion systems class and we dug into the the engine a bunch. There were lots of problems, especially with the earlier production models, with compressor stalls due to high AOA and airflow interruptions. The compressor stalls often led to shedding of blades, which would destroy the engine. I can't remember the exact years, but in the late 1960s and early 1970s there was a very high rate of failure occurring. Engines were lasting less than 700 hours on average. There was a really cool (declassified) report that the Air Force did, instructing accident investigators how to investigate accidents specific to the J79-17 because they had become so common. I know I have a copy somewhere, but I can't find it.

Ironically, 15 years later I was flying with a bunch of retired guard guys (in the 121 world) who had flown the F4 and they were constantly talking about how unreliable the engines had been. Several of them had red anodized Martin-Baker watches.

It sounds like that towards the end of the program the engines had gotten much better though.
Click to expand...

If i had to hazard a guess, it wouldn’t be that what you researched wasn’t also true, but those engines were run hard in the 1960’s to early 1970’s. Lotta full grunt time, low altitude, etc, over Hanoi. That also wreaks havoc on engines that weren’t really designed for that (as they kind of are now). Maybe one thing combined with another led to that outcome, id guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top