News Forum - F-16 fighter crashes during training in Chaiyaphum, pilot is safe

[Thaiger]

An F-16 fighter plane crashed during a training session in the northeastern province Chaiyaphum today. The pilot managed to eject himself from the aircraft and is safe, according to a spokesperson for the Royal Thai Air Force. The spokesperson says that the incident was reported to the relevant department and committee, who will then investigate the cause of the crash. The Royal Thai Air Force authorities will also visit the scene to collect more evidence and assess the amount of damage. The Royal Thai Air Force has asked everyone to stay away from the accident scene and thanked rescuers for their […]

The story F-16 fighter crashes during training in Chaiyaphum, pilot is safe as seen on Thaiger News.

Read the full story

[DoUKnowWhoIAm]

10 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

assess the amount of damage.

Put a few screws in place, then we're good to go again

[AdvocatusDiaboli]

9 minutes ago, Thaiger said:

The Royal Thai Air Force authorities will also visit the scene to collect more evidence and assess the amount of damage.

Mmmmm pilot ejected, bet it’s a write off! Or they mean how many buffaloes the locals may be asking compensation for because of the crash. Also Better make it 5 new Jet fighters now instead of 4.

[Convert54]

That is very strange reporting as to Thai Air Force intentions in crash scene  assessment . Or is it that this  particular  aircraft was a  retrofitted  self drive model that in the situation where the Pilot opts for ejection due to inability to defy computer over-ride control ?   Max 8 computer?

No worries ! Maybe a rush order for a detuned SU-57 is on the  "other"  books?

[Rookiescot]

F16's Achilles heel. Single engine. If it goes out then you have limited options.

Fantastic aircraft and relatively cheap that serves many air forces with distinction. 

[Convert54]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

F16's Achilles heel. Single engine. If it goes out then you have limited options.

Fantastic aircraft and relatively cheap that serves many air forces with distinction. 

Quite similar to human life  then? Limited options if the spark plug/s  fail . Fantastic form of animal that just needs some  adjustments in production? 

 

[Cabra]

Next time they should buy one without an engine and mount it on their new engineless submarine. 

[AlexPTY]

Fufu strikes again 

[Dedinbed]

1 hour ago, DoUKnowWhoIAm said:

Put a few screws in place, then we're good to go again

Don't forget some cable ties .. 

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, Dedinbed said:

Don't forget some cable ties .. 

Cable ties? Pfffft. Professionals use duct tape.

[Cathat]

4 hours ago, whitesnake said:

'Ere we are! A replacement at a fraction of the cost!! 

they used to be the largest manufacturer of aircraft in the UK.

think they are made in India now so should be cheap enough for the thai airforce to buy a squadron or two.

[Politenessman]

9 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

F16's Achilles heel. Single engine. If it goes out then you have limited options.

Fantastic aircraft and relatively cheap that serves many air forces with distinction. 

Yep, the single engine issue is one of my major concerns with the very expensive F-35, if it ingests a duck or something breaks, the plane only headed in one direction from there.

[Cathat]

Plenty of single engined aircraft about civil and military.

The debate has gone on forever about this issue.

A twin engined aircraft is not necessarily safer than a single engined one 

Don't forget you have twice as much to potentially go wrong and in the event of an engine failure you still have the weight and drag penalty of the failed engine 

Most twin engined aircraft particularly small ones fly like pooh with one engine out and its easy to lose control of them.

many pilot's would prefer to fly a well maintained single over an average maintained twin if given the choice.

[palooka]

Think they started making F-16s in early 80s, so nearly 40 years old some of them.

Maybe they have good insurance against crashing.

[Politenessman]

On 3/9/2022 at 3:57 PM, Cathat said:

Plenty of single engined aircraft about civil and military.

The debate has gone on forever about this issue.

A twin engined aircraft is not necessarily safer than a single engined one 

Don't forget you have twice as much to potentially go wrong and in the event of an engine failure you still have the weight and drag penalty of the failed engine 

Most twin engined aircraft particularly small ones fly like pooh with one engine out and its easy to lose control of them.

many pilot's would prefer to fly a well maintained single over an average maintained twin if given the choice.

By definition a Twin engined a/c IS safer than a single.

Sure there is more to go wrong, but you can still limp it home on one - the old saying "it's better to lose AN engine, than lose THE engine" applies here.

[Poolie]

I guess it's like nuts. You're better off with one rather than none?

[Cathat]

2 hours ago, Politenessman said:

By definition a Twin engined a/c IS safer than a single.

Sure there is more to go wrong, but you can still limp it home on one - the old saying "it's better to lose AN engine, than lose THE engine" applies here.

Following that school of thought a glider therefore is not as safe as a single.

the training requirements accident rate and insurance premiums do not follow the simple logic that more engines equal safer.

It's not quite that simple.

Do you have experience of asymmetric flight.

 

 

[Politenessman]

56 minutes ago, Cathat said:

Following that school of thought a glider therefore is not as safe as a single.

the training requirements accident rate and insurance premiums do not follow the simple logic that more engines equal safer.

It's not quite that simple.

Do you have experience of asymmetric flight.

No, do you have experience of crashing a 75 million dollar fighter plane because THE engine failed?

Some years ago I looked up the stats on the RAAF, and they had (back then) over 20 examples of F/A-18s returning on 1 engine - that would be 20 x total write offs if they were single engine fighters.