
Did an F-15 airplane successfully land with just one wing? - DiabloD3
http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/9884/did-an-f-15-airplane-successfully-land-with-just-one-wing
======
ChuckMcM
My Dad (retired air force) also forwarded this to me, which I found pretty
interesting. One of the 'features' of the X-29[1] demonstrator (which was
exploring dynamically unstable flight) was that it continued to fly in all
sorts of 'outside the envelope' scenarios.

The part that amazes me though is that any human being can sit there and
figure out that adding thrust or doing some other action helps or doesn't help
when sitting in a chunk of steel that wants to hit the ground hard. I have
total respect for folks who stay stone cold rational in the face of their
imminent demise.

[1]
[http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-008...](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-008-DFRC.html#.UxoSXNuVuM8)

~~~
mikeash
The thing is, it just sort of happens. It's not some massive effort to remain
calm, but rather you just automatically focus. That's how people have
described it, and it's been my own experience. I've never experienced anything
close to this bad, but I've had a couple of aeronautical close scrapes and
there's just no room for fear.

Edit: had the same experience in a car once as well. Total focus on solving
the problem. Terror comes after.

~~~
raamdev
Forethought (visualization) and training play a big part as well.

You reminded me of something that happened to me while driving a few years
ago. I was on the highway in the far left lane going about 70mph. I was
driving an Audi A4, which had much better (sensitive) handling than the pickup
truck I was used to driving. There was a breakdown lane to the left of me
(unusual for most highways) and I thought to myself, "if I suddenly needed to
swerve out of the way for some reason, I could flick my wrist and get into the
left breakdown lane to avoid whatever was happening in front of me".

Not more than a few seconds after having that thought, I saw the car in front
of the car in front of me jump up onto the car in front of it. The car in
front of me slammed on his brakes. I flicked my wrist to the left without
thinking. Only when I passed (in the left breakdown lane) all the cars piled
on top of each other did I realize just how closely I dodged a serious
accident. If I had not visualized what I would do in such a scenario a few
seconds earlier, I'm not sure if I would've done the same thing.

~~~
TrevorJ
Good driving involves always being aware of safe exits if you need to make an
evasive maneuver. It's a habit that comes well in handy as you say.

~~~
chockablock
And safe following distances.

~~~
raamdev
Plenty of close calls have taught me the value of always knowing my exits and
always leaving plenty of space between me and the car in front of me (driving
instructors often teach 1 car length for every 10 mph: 70 mph = 7 car
lengths).

Unfortunately a lot of these rules only work if other drivers on the road are
also following them (around here, in the Boston area, you'll be lucky to have
2 car lengths of space in front of you no matter your speed), so I've learned
that simply being aware at all times (no phone, no distracting conversations,
and holy hell no text messaging or emails) is the best thing anyone can do for
improving their safety while behind the wheel.

------
smackay
It's always impressive to see pilots who are able to recover from seemingly
impossible situations:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236)

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4288383.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4288383.stm)

More tales of derring-do that will be a thing of the past when everything is
automated.

~~~
FigBug
This one impressed me the most:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232)

After a total hydraulic failure, the pilots still managed to land just using
thrust difference between the two engines. I'm impressed anybody survived.

~~~
mhurron
I've always been extremely impressed and awed by the pilots of the Gimli
Glider.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider)

~~~
lutorm
"The aircraft's fuel gauges were inoperative because of an electronic fault
which was indicated on the instrument panel and airplane logs (the pilots
believed flight to be legal with this malfunction)."

Dudes, wtf? Unless Canadian regulations differ from US ones, you're not even
allowed to fly a single-seater in day VFR without a fuel gauge.

~~~
munin
this story is longer, I think: [http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-
glider/](http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gimli-glider/)

it explains why they flew without a fuel gauge. tl;dr - they knew the gauge
was broken, but regs allowed the flight if the maintenance crew did a manual
sounding of the tanks and the measured fuel was enough. they sounded and
measured, but converted incorrectly between pounds and kilos. I think the
pilots were severely disciplined for that failure.

~~~
mhurron
They were disciplined by Air Canada as Air Canada held the pilots and ground
crew at fault even though the Aviation Board found Air Canada at fault.

Their disciplinary action was later overturned and "the pilots were awarded
the first ever Fédération Aéronautique Internationale Diploma for Outstanding
Airmanship."

------
gonzo
Kim Campbell landed a severely damaged A-10
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_\(pilot\))
[http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_...](http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-
damage/story0016.htm)

The A-10 is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator, and half
of one wing missing.

~~~
nether
Mandatory A-10 worship post requirement satisfied. Now onto why guns >
missiles, and how the SR-71 was really cool.

~~~
melling
Hard to believe that the SR-71 is almost 50 years old and it's still the
fastest plane in the world.

[Update] For some reason, I can't reply to the X-15 comment, so I'll add the
extra info here. The X-15 is dropped from a B-52. There are a set of rules to
qualify for the record. An unpowered scramjet dropped from another plane isn't
going to quality either.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_airspeed_record)

~~~
lostlogin
Does anyone know why the reply function breaks sometimes? Or is it a feature?

~~~
ColinWright
The deeper the nesting, the longer it takes a "Reply" link to show up. Wait a
bit, reload, and it will be there, or follow the "link" link and it will be
there immediately.

This is a deliberate feature to slow down "discussions" that are actually
unproductive back-n-forth arguments.

------
Retric
A better explanation is the adaptive fly by wire system used the remaining
wing to generate some lift which would normally cause roll however it
compensated by using tail's control surface. Combined with thrust vectoring a
high angle of attack to maximize lift from the airframe and a ridiculous
amount of thrust and you only need one wing.

PS: You can also fly an F-15 sideways the stall speed simply goes through the
roof.

~~~
mpweiher
Neither the original F-15 nor the F-15D mentioned in the article have fly-by-
wire, which is considered as a feature for the updated F-15SE Silent Eagle.

So interesting aerodynamics and mad flying skills, not fancy electronics :-)

~~~
afterburner
I'd assumed the phrase "I reconnected the electric control to the control
surfaces" referred to fly-by-wire, I guess it refers to something else?

~~~
rayiner
See the descriptions of the PRCA and ARI here:
[http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html](http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_hydro_mech.html).

When people use the phrase "fly by wire" they usually mean a system where the
control stick feeds a digital signal into a computer, which controls the
hydraulic servos for the control surfaces directly. The F-15 doesn't have
that. Instead, what it has is a system where the stick is connected
mechanically to the hydraulic system. On top of that, two electronic systems
(the Pitch/Roll Channel Assembly and Aileron Rudder Interconnect) can provide
an additional variable control input to the hydraulic actuators, to even out
the feel of the stick in varying flight conditions. It also provides inputs to
improve the dynamic flight characteristics of the plane:
[http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.ht...](http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm)
(see the paragraphs under "Control Augmentation System.")

So the F-15's control system provides additional electronic input to the
control services to improve flight characteristics, but isn't totally in
charge of the airplane in the same way as a true fly by wire system. For
example, the electronics cannot move the control surfaces through their full
range of motion, and are strictly reactive to the pilot's stick input.

------
zandor
This is not related, but still an interesting event. The Cornfield Bomber: An
F-106 that went into a spin, pilot ejected, plane then managed to recover from
spin and land itself.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2XZEYqIpQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2XZEYqIpQ)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornfield_Bomber)

~~~
dredmorbius
Thus demonstrating aeronautical symmetry: pilot landing w/o a wing, vs. wings
landing w/o a pilot.

------
jere
>No warning light was on and the navigation computer worked as usual; (I just
needed a warning light in my panel to indicate that I missed a wing...)."

Hilarious.

~~~
raverbashing
Missed a wing is a rare event, but I find it strange that there are no
warnings for all the control surfaces that are not there anymore

But then again it's a fighter jet, so maybe the "distraction level" is lower
and too many warnings means eject.

~~~
deletes
Thea would need a percentage based hull integrity display.

------
tzury
(domestic backing for the story)

This is a true story, known for years here in Israel.

The pilot, Zivi Nedivi, is a successful business man, has been running an
hedge fund (AXION) and todays he's in charge at Cyalume [1][2].

This is the video with the pilot telling the story
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t739hAxWnxM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t739hAxWnxM)

[1] [http://cyalume.com/](http://cyalume.com/) [2]
[http://investor.cyalume.com/management.cfm](http://investor.cyalume.com/management.cfm)

------
tgholford
Interesting.

High speed aircraft can generate enough lift to fly just with the fuselage.
Wings are really only needed for take-off and landing at low speeds.

You will notice that the F-15 pilot said he landed at high speed, 250 knots or
so.

The F-14 Tomcat, F-111, and B-1 bomber have swing wings, which extend on take-
off but retract for high-speed flight. The F-14’s wing sweep has a computer
control mode so that the wing sweep angle can change dynamically while the
plane is maneuvering.

There are lots of stories about airplanes missing wings.

One of my instructors in flight training was flying an F-11 Tiger, and lost
both wings during a high-G maneuver. He said that he noticed that the controls
got “mushy”. In a lot of jets, the horizontal tail surfaces can angle up or
down independently and replace the “ailerons” normally on the wing outer
edges. He reported a problem to the tower and did a fly-by. They told him his
wings were gone. I don’t know if he landed or ejected.

There have been numerous documented incidents where planes have launched from
carriers with the wings folded. I know of cases where this has happened with
A-1 and F-4 type aircraft.

When I was in the Mediterranean, I saw an F-4 land on the carrier with an
outer wing panel (beyond the fold line) hanging straight down after a
collision with a Russian Bear bomber.

I also saw an A-6 land at Naples air facility with a missing outer wing panel
as a result of a collision somewhere over the Med.

The F-15 video was pretty impressive. It really shows how much lift is
generated by the fuselage, and how at some point, the wings don’t provide any
lift but are just pure drag.

If you have enough thrust, you don’t need any wings at all. But then it’s not
an “airplane” but a rocket.

------
fasteddie31003
Hacker News seems to love fighter planes recently. They are pretty cool.
However, there is one fighter plane that I absolutely hate everything about.
The F35.

~~~
GotAnyMegadeth
Care to elaborate?

~~~
fasteddie31003
It is a huge waste of money ~$200m each. The project has been plagued with
technical problems (it doesn't meet its performance specifications, it has
structural problems, etc.). It does not perform any better than current
fighter planes in war game simulations. It is being made for a war that we
will never fight with fighter planes. I wonder if America has fought its last
human controlled air-to-air dog fight, or it will be extremely rare. And it
was shoved down the Pentagon's throat by lobbyists. Take a look for yourself
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II)

~~~
toomuchtodo
> I wonder if America has fought its last human controlled air-to-air dog
> fight, or it will be extremely rare.

Yes. Drones and long-range weapons delivery (either high energy or SCRAM-
driven missiles). Fighter jets? Might as well call out the buggy whips and
horse drawn carriages.

Obligatory A-10 shoutout: We still need something that can provide air-to-
ground support to ground troops with a long dwell time, but high-speed cruise
to fast deployment (shamelessly stolen from The Avengers:
[http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg](http://www.impdb.org/images/a/ae/Avengers2012CGI_2.jpg)).

~~~
philwelch
There is a F-35 variant that's designed to provide close air support, but it's
the USMC variant and it's designed to replace the Harrier, which is little
consolation to the Army.

Of course, designing the same airframe to replace both the Harrier and the
F-16 is a ridiculous notion and the F-35 suffers for it.

------
MechSkep
Kinda disappointed the total emphasis is on him being a "hell of a good pilot"
instead of the control engineers who allowed the plane to compensate for
losing a wing. There's no way that plane would have stayed in the air without
their work.

~~~
rz2k
Everyone would have been safe if they were on the ground without all that
extra potential energy. Maybe it is the engineers' fault that they were in the
air in the first place.

That said, I imagine being controllable while missing a wing was a side effect
of the performance goals addressed with the fuselage's lift, or the design
goals addressed with the width of fuselage relative to the wingspan.
Flightworthiness without a wing probably was not a goal, though we can assume
that many features such as the one-way fuel valves that make it able to
sustain inflicted damage were very important to its survivability in this
case.

It sounds like the pilot adapted his tools and equipment, and successfully
used them in a situation they were not designed for. If you develop some
innovative software, it may not have worked without the specific compiler you
used, but that isn't the same as saying the person who wrote the compiler
wrote your software. It is difficult to tell from the story whether landing
was something that very pilots could have done, or whether it was a more or
less natural response to the feedback he was getting from the aircraft in the
cockpit.

~~~
stackcollision
If you go back far enough eventually some germ will get the credit.

------
jobu
I had no idea there was a skeptics stackexchange site. That's very cool
(although not as cool as landing a plane with one wing).

It will be interesting to see if this site has any effect on Snopes.com

------
kitd
"Passengers may notice a slight reduction in the number of wings" \-- Bob
Newhart

~~~
arethuza
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going
again. I trust you are not in too much distress."

Actual announcement from a BA 747 flight:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9)

~~~
berberous
Wow. You have to love the British...

~~~
evanb
"Quiet desperation is the English way..."[1]

[1] [http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/time-dark-
lyrics.html](http://www.pink-floyd-lyrics.com/html/time-dark-lyrics.html)

------
OWaz
This reminds me of a case study sponsored by DARPA where a plane that suffered
significant damage to a wing could still land when autonomous systems took
over.

Here's a link explaining the project:
[https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Succes...](https://www.rockwellcollins.com/sitecore/content/Data/Success_Stories/DARPA_Damage_Tolerance.aspx)

And here's a youtube clip showing a demonstration of the system. A UAV has
part of it's wing removed mid-air and the plane manages to land.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiPNV1TR5k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGiPNV1TR5k)

------
jjallen
For people that missed the wiki page about the incident:
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-
air_collision](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev_mid-air_collision)

------
sushirain
Also about this incident: "Nedivi (the pilot) reportedly was demoted for
disobeying his instructor's order to eject and immediately thereafter promoted
for saving his airplane—which two months later was repaired and flying again."
[1]

[1] [http://www.historynet.com/the-10-greatest-emergency-
landings...](http://www.historynet.com/the-10-greatest-emergency-landings.htm)

------
throwaway812
Why doesn't the pilot eject and let the plane crash? Is the plane more
valuable than the pilot's life? (A damaged plane, no less.)

~~~
mikeash
Ejection isn't a get out of jail free card. I've heard it described as being
just _barely_ preferable to crashing. There's a decent chance of significant
injury and even death in an ejection.

~~~
AmVess
This poor fellow did it at supersonic speeds and lived:
[http://jalopnik.com/5894022/what-happens-when-you-eject-
out-...](http://jalopnik.com/5894022/what-happens-when-you-eject-out-of-a-jet-
at-800-mph)

~~~
mikeash
Here's one who ejected slash got thrown out of the airplane at over mach 3:

[http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm](http://www.916-starfighter.de/SR-71_Waever.htm)

He lived, his back-seater did not.

I recall seeing someone run the numbers, and it turns out that the guy in your
link had it worse, as the much lower altitude more than made up for the lower
speed.

~~~
AmVess
Wow, thanks for the link. What an astounding story.

------
kencausey
I apologize in advance for posting rather far off topic but I am compelled.

Did anyone else who watched the Youtube video have trouble following the
dialogue due to the 'background' music? It seemed entirely too loud in the mix
for me. The fact that the highest quality was 240p means the audio was also
low quality, I'm too lazy to look it up but likely 64kbps or less. Perhaps
that is also relevant.

Not to be discounted is the fact of my age and the fact that I stopped
watching television some years ago. Which is the cause and which the effect is
not entirely clear to me.

------
amorphid
The F-15 is an amazing plane. It blows my mind that it can accelerate in a
100% vertical climb.

I've heard stories about A-10 warthogs landing on one wing, too.

~~~
rosser
_It blows my mind that it can accelerate in a 100% vertical climb._

Not to diminish this feat, because it is indeed impressive, but it's a natural
consequence of having a thrust:weight ratio significantly greater than 1. It's
also _horrendously_ expensive in fuel.

------
giarc
Wait... how did the pilot not know he lost a wing?

~~~
mikeash
Well, how would he? He was too busy flying the airplane to look, and the wing
is well behind the pilot in this plane.

~~~
berberous
The video also says that his co-pilot could not see the damage due to fuel
spilling out in a plume and covering the area where the wing should be.

------
S_A_P
Partially being facetious here, but if he were a "hell of a good pilot"
wouldn't this landing not have had to happen? That said it's pretty impressive
that he managed to pull this off

~~~
monkey_slap
Remember that the plane he collided with was being piloted by someone else. I
haven't found any evidence to suggest it was the other pilot's fault, but
nothing points to this pilot's negligence either.

------
bitwarrior
In thrust we trust.

------
vaadu
Thank you John Boyd and McDonnell Douglas.

------
TehCorwiz
Yes, The answer is body lift + speed.

------
001sky
The still @ 3.28-29 is surreal.

------
zobzu
the shape of the F-15 isn't exactly unique. but yes.

------
milesf
Am I missing something? Why is this and other articles about planes doing on
Hacker News?

I like planes, but I thought this site was about internet startups?

~~~
milesf
Wow. Downvoted. This place really has changed.

