trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
Easy there Che...
Rockwell B-1B Lancer crash at KRCA
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Easy there Che...
Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
The proper response to this is “K”
Lawman
Well-Known Member
"The B-1 is a conventional supersonic bomber"
"Conventional" eh?
Completely.
Part of the START treaties it lost that mission. It did for a while carry the widest array of conventional ordnance and select ability within that payload over the other bombers so it had a menu to chose from when a B52 would typically only be carrying 1 flavor of JDAM on the wings only.
Similarly the Russians took air refueling out of the Backfire, though it’s arguable how quickly that could be put back on. Either way I’d love to see the result of somebody trying to probe refuel a bomber having 0 days of training in it so it’ll be fun if they tried.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Does the night watch always trail AF1? I should probably know this, but have never paid attention
Generally within a similar region of some undisclosed distance. Goes wherever it wants and needs, though there are some primary bases for it to stage at, as it has some specific needs.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
The amount of “ass” that travels with the president would amaze people.
Supported one going to “somewhere” in South America…. It involved 4x C17s worth of things to include a surgical resuscitation team.
Obama literally extended one of my deployments because he had to go somewhere for something and we lost our spot in line with TRANSCOM and couldn’t get any Airlift assets.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
You took that way too seriously. Especially in the context of a civilian article. Using the normal definition of "conventional" the B1 is far from that.
That said, it still is a nuke bomber even if it isn't used that way.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
I'm curious where they punched out - will the B-1 allow for a 0-0 ejection, or is it one of those "you can do anything ... once" type of things.
It does, but zero-zero seats are just that….zero-zero. If your low altitude and with a significant roll angle, rate of descent, or both, you could easily be outside the seat’s envelope of success. The seat does its best to solve the puzzles of the parameters it’s given at the time of ejection, but it only has the power to solve so much.
in the 1988 accident there, one of the navigators was injured when his seat fired at nearly 90 degrees and still rolling, and about 100 agl. He bounced along the ground as the chute was deploying and until the seat skidded to a stop. The snow covered ground with no obstructions there is what kept him from being killed. But he was injured.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
I actually saw this once; it was an F14 in a flat spin. The plane was spinning rapidly when the eject was pulled and for some unexplained reason, the departed canopy continued to spin just above the plane in harmonious synchronization. The result is that the rear got his head slammed into the canopy.
Unfortunately he died!
Unfortunately he died!
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
Drop an F in the chat for our boy gooseI actually saw this once; it was an F14 in a flat spin. The plane was spinning rapidly when the eject was pulled and for some unexplained reason, the departed canopy continued to spin just above the plane in harmonious synchronization. The result is that the rear got his head slammed into the canopy.
Unfortunately he died!
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I think that part of the script was actually based on a couple of true stories with lots of facts mixed up for dramatic effect. Or not.I actually saw this once; it was an F14 in a flat spin. The plane was spinning rapidly when the eject was pulled and for some unexplained reason, the departed canopy continued to spin just above the plane in harmonious synchronization. The result is that the rear got his head slammed into the canopy.
Unfortunately he died!
///AMG
Well-Known Member
Yeah, there is a long history of departure from controlled flight in just about every legacy fighter community. Tomcat had the flat spin mode, Hornet had the "falling leaf" departure. I'm not sure if it was fully resolved in the F-14, but they mostly fixed the glitch with software in the F/A-18. I know the F-16 has had its share of inverted deep stall/spins as well, for which they also developed a creative "fix" eventually. We brief "Departure/Spin" boldface procedures prior to every ACM flight, for this historical reason, though unrecoverable departures/spins are a lot less common today. But it would probably be an understatement to say that they were common in 1985/1986 as the film was being made.
knot4u
Repeat Offender
I didn't say any of it was or is common, I just said the writers/producers took pieces of several different real incidents and blended them into a dramatic, fictitious scene for the big screen. Every part of that story actually happened, they just didn't all happen at the same time. When I was 15 watching that movie I thought to my 15 year old self "Who would want to fly in the back seat of an F-14?". So I'm a mechanic on shore. The effect for recruitment was off the charts. I was an old fart at 5, I thought "Nope". I'm entirely uncertain whether or not I made the right choice.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
I think the agreed upon fix for the Tomcat was getting rid of the TF30…. And then retiring the jet.
Problem solved.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
trafficinsight
Well-Known Member
I actually saw this once; it was an F14 in a flat spin. The plane was spinning rapidly when the eject was pulled and for some unexplained reason, the departed canopy continued to spin just above the plane in harmonious synchronization. The result is that the rear got his head slammed into the canopy.
Unfortunately he died!
Was based on a real event wasn't it?
Interestingly, the Iranians have never had the issues with the TF30 to the degree that the USN did and have managed to keep it in service well. Likely due to learning from the USNs experience with them, and with the substantial parts package they did receive for them. Interesting bit of info though.
Lawman
Well-Known Member
I don’t think they ever really flew them the same way.
When you read accounts of their F14 usage in the Iran/Iraq war they seem to be doing profiles of long range missile truck almost like something the ADC did with the F106.
I think they view it more as a mission node directing the fight from distance pushing less capable assets like 4/5s rather than a true fighter.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
