Anybody Know The Story Behind This Image?

[Bushranger]

 

 

Anybody know what happened here? No canopy...and ugh, where did the RIO go? :lol: :doh:

 

If anybody knows what happened here feel free to share, I'm quite curious as to how this managed to happen. :lol:

[King_Hrothgar]

http://www.vfp62.com/f14_rio.html

[HungaroJET]

Here is the story about BNo: 164341, F-14D (from home of M.A.T.S)

 

On Nov. 6, 2002 this F-14 took off from Fallon Naval Air Station with a VIP in the back seat - a naval officer from the cruiser Anzio who was on what the military calls a "FAM Hop," or familiarization ride. In flight, when the pilot pulled a "negative 1g," the gravity force moved the officer nearly off his seat. He reached down to reposition himself and accidentally pulled the ejection lever. The cockpit canopy flew off and out went the VIP. The ejection system automatically opened the VIP's parachute. He landed safely in the Nevada desert and waited for his rescue. The F-14 returned to base.

 

dumping out the fuel:

Edited May 24, 2015 by HungaroJET

[Bushranger]

Thank you both! Very interesting read!

 

Though I still can't comprehend how you accidently set off an ejection seat, haha. :lol: :doh:

[HungaroJET]

Thank you both! Very interesting read!

 

Though I still can't comprehend how you accidently set off an ejection seat, haha. :lol: :doh:

 

:D yeah, it's funny coz nobody hurt, fortunately

 

"After talking to the Captain at the O'Club later that night, I realized I better could have briefed elements of the flight. Though I covered all of the details, I didn't fully consider his perspective. He said he didn't know where to put his hands. :) Consequently, he just left them in loosely clenched fists on his lap, about two inches away from the ejection handle. It never occurred to me that someone would not know what to do with his hands. Obviously, I fly with the stick and throttle in my hands 95 percent of the flight, but I failed to consider his situation"

Edited May 24, 2015 by HungaroJET

[VTJS17_Fire]

The tv series "JAG" did a episode of this story, with commander rabb as the pilot and admiral chegwidden as the RIO.

[jcbak]

..... I thought he had hit L ctrl+C

[=Mac=]

If I recall correctly (from the early 1970's!) The F-4J had what we called a command select valve which (normally?) was selected to "BOTH". If the RIO punched out, both would be ejected within fractions of a second from each other. If the command select valve was not set to "BOTH" and the RIO ejected, the pilot remained as in this photo. I do not recall what the normal position was. I do remember it was in the upper left side of the (front) of the RIO's instrument panel.

 

Keep in mind that my naval aviation days were forty years ago!

[EagleFox]

RIO had to take a shit

[CheckGear]

RIO had to take a shit

 

I CAN'T HOLD IT NO MORE!!! I'M EJECTING TO EJECT!!!

 

Seriously, I wonder what it must've been like for the pilot to fly without a canopy. I'm sure it couldn't have been comfortable.

[SilentGun]

Wow nice read! it must be rely scary to have your canopy popped in mid flight and then realize the guy behind you is gone. but I wonder what it would have felt like for him to stick his hand out the cockpit :D

[Bushranger]

..... I thought he had hit L ctrl+C

 

Hahahaha!

 

:lol::megalol:

[Nooch]

RIO had to take a shit

 

 

On a more serious note though, why are they dumping fuel on that F-14?

Edited May 25, 2015 by Nooch

[Bushranger]

 

 

On a more serious note though, why are they dumping fuel on that F-14?

 

I'm pretty sure they did that so that if there was a problem on landing and the aircraft crashes it is less likely to go up in flames, it also makes the aircraft lighter as well, which would help in this scenario.

[BerryMORE]

Im think that without dumping of fuel his MLW is exceeded.

Max. Landing weight: 23.510 kg.

Empty weight near 19.000 kg.

So at touchdown he must have about 4.000 kg of fuel, or mechanics must do some actions)) like inspections "Overweight landing" or "Hard landing"

 

For information, F-14 cant land to carrier with 6 AIM-54.

[phant]

First thing to try when LS Tomcat come out! :D

 

Ya, this is D version but, maybe, A/A+/B ejection system works in the same way.

 

Bye

Phant

[turkeydriver]

Pretty sure the aircraft was stricken as a class A mishap and never repaired.

[BlackLion213]

Im think that without dumping of fuel his MLW is exceeded.

Max. Landing weight: 23.510 kg.

Empty weight near 19.000 kg.

So at touchdown he must have about 4.000 kg of fuel, or mechanics must do some actions)) like inspections "Overweight landing" or "Hard landing"

 

For information, F-14 cant land to carrier with 6 AIM-54.

 

According to NATOPS, the official max trap weight of the F-14 is 54,000 lbs (which is around 24,500 kg) and empty weight of the F-14A is around 18,000 kg. This is a big "bring back" figure for a fighter, the ability to land with 14,000 lbs of fuel or ordinance. The Navy specified the ability to bring back a full phoenix load (just 10,000 lbs with missiles and pallets) as part of the original contract. A bring back of 14,000 lbs was a new record for a navy fighter.

 

It's true that a fully fueled F-14 is above max trap weight and would need to dump prior to landing.

 

-Nick

[CheckGear]

According to NATOPS, the official max trap weight of the F-14 is 54,000 lbs (which is around 24,500 kg) and empty weight of the F-14A is around 18,000 kg. This is a big "bring back" figure for a fighter, the ability to land with 14,000 lbs of fuel or ordinance. The Navy specified the ability to bring back a full phoenix load (just 10,000 lbs with missiles and pallets) as part of the original contract. A bring back of 14,000 lbs was a new record for a navy fighter.

 

It's true that a fully fueled F-14 is above max trap weight and would need to dump prior to landing.

 

-Nick

 

Former NFO Dave "Bio" Baranek stated in his excellent book Topgun Days that, in the "real world," the F-14 rarely carried more than two Phoenix missiles. Weight was a real issue, whether in the air or during recovery. So regardless of what NATOPS states, carrying more than two AIM-54s was not something that was considered operationally sound.

[BlackLion213]

Former NFO Dave "Bio" Baranek stated in his excellent book Topgun Days that, in the "real world," the F-14 rarely carried more than two Phoenix missiles. Weight was a real issue, whether in the air or during recovery. So regardless of what NATOPS states, carrying more than two AIM-54s was not something that was considered operationally sound.

 

Yes, that is true. All the A-A loadouts routinely used during peacetime and war involved 2 phoenixes on the forward pallets, 2-3 sparrows, and 2 sidewinders. Most Tomcat squadrons did not expect to make very many BVR shots given the type of scenarios that USN was realistically involved. Plus, the weight of the phoenix+pallet was noticeable during ACM, there is a definite risk-benefit to carrying a heavy load of phoenixes since it affects performance, fuel consumption, etc.

 

However, I'm trying to ensure that accurate data is supported. The Tomcat was designed and able to bring back 6 phoenixes (dumping them would represent an enormous cost for multiple aircraft). Just wanted to clarify that point.

 

Carrying more than 2 phoenixes was operationally sound, but may not be operationally necessary - and the cost (not $) often exceeded the benefit. That would be a better way to portray it.

 

-Nick

Edited May 25, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Wizard_03]

RIO had to take a shit

 

Hope it doesn't get in front of the intake, might cause a compressor stall!! lol :Flush:

[captain_dalan]

Hope it doesn't get in front of the intake, might cause a compressor stall!! lol :Flush:

A convertible Tomcat, bust have been some ride! :lol:

[CheckGear]

Yes, that is true. All the A-A loadouts routinely used during peacetime and war involved 2 phoenixes on the forward pallets, 2-3 sparrows, and 2 sidewinders. Most Tomcat squadrons did not expect to make very many BVR shots given the type of scenarios that USN was realistically involved. Plus, the weight of the phoenix+pallet was noticeable during ACM, there is a definite risk-benefit to carrying a heavy load of phoenixes since it affects performance, fuel consumption, etc.

 

However, I'm trying to ensure that accurate data is supported. The Tomcat was designed and able to bring back 6 phoenixes (dumping them would represent an enormous cost for multiple aircraft). Just wanted to clarify that point.

 

Carrying more than 2 phoenixes was operationally sound, but may not be operationally necessary - and the cost (not $) often exceeded the benefit. That would be a better way to portray it.

 

-Nick

 

You also have to realize that when it comes to technical specifications, often times these manuals are simply conveying how far you can stretch something without being in the territory of misuse. So while a Tomcat may have been "rated" to trap with six Phoenix missiles, the likelihood of it actually being able to do so is probably due to a myriad of favorable factors that may not be available in the real world.

[BlackLion213]

You also have to realize that when it comes to technical specifications, often times these manuals are simply conveying how far you can stretch something without being in the territory of misuse. So while a Tomcat may have been "rated" to trap with six Phoenix missiles, the likelihood of it actually being able to do so is probably due to a myriad of favorable factors that may not be available in the real world.

 

Sure...

 

Performance is subject to circumstances and environmental factors, not something that most would dispute.

 

I am simply stating that the ability to recover with 6 phoenix missiles was part of the original design specification (in the late 1960s) and it is inaccurate to state that the aircraft could not do it.

 

I've never seen a carrier launch or recovery with 6 phoenixes, only photo hops from land bases - like "Hey Joe" Parsons famous VF-32 photo (which I can't find an online link for - it's a good photo that took a lot of practice to get right).

 

The 6 phoenix load-out was intended to be a "doomsday" configuration - but the USN still wanted the aircraft to be able to recover with this load - at least in the beginning.

 

I think we agree on this. It's a bit like saying "the Tomcat was not a Mach 2 fighter", because the most recent NATOPS manual recommends a max speed of Mach 1.88 for engine-out safety. It could fly to mach 2, reached mach 2.40 in OPEVAL, but no guarantee that an F-14 that you pulled off the line would reach it that day, depending on aircraft condition, ambient temp, engine tune, etc. Still, it was a Mach 2 aircraft by the standards of comparison to other aircraft. Similarly, the F-14 has enough "bring back" designed into the airframe to allow it to trap with 6 phoenix missiles, and done so deliberately. Even if no-one ever tried. This high bring back was also a great benefit for FCLP practice, since the aircraft could practice with ~75% fuel load. A big upgrade from the Phantom which needed to burn down to fairly low fuel state before practice. Ironically, the increased empty weight of the F-14D made it the only variant without enough bring back for 6 phoenixes. Again, it was more or less irrelevant since no one was trying.

 

Is there something that I'm missing?

 

-Nick

Edited May 25, 2015 by BlackLion213

[Woogey]

Pretty sure the aircraft was stricken as a class A mishap and never repaired.

 

I don't know why you would assume a minor incident like this would put a Highly valuable Tomcat out of commission. A new Canopy and an Ejection seat and he was good to go! 164341 seen 4 years later in the Bone Yard at DM. -Woog