Bird hits plane...

[BUFF]

and furthermore its been known for a few planes to have flown for hours with only a portion of wing / tail missing in one case both the tail and wing with big chunks missing...

Not without their 1 & only engine running though.
Btw if you are thinking about that Israeli F-15 when McDonnell Douglas modelled it there are valid aerodynamic reasons why it continued to fly.

But until then... I stick to my guns when I say, the plane could have been saved...

2 pilots are more valuable than any aircraft.
You are in a climb at the departure end of the runway, not too much altitude, speed will be only a little more than stalling, you've got fuel on board & you lose your only engine (& the drag from a dead turbine is huge - you can't feather it like a prop) ...
I think that if you ask any military pilot what the book calls for in that situation it's an ejection.

edit: looking at the HUD they appear to have been doing ~250 knots when they ingested the bird.
According to the .pdf the max altitude it attained was 1700AGL, trading speed for height.
Don't think that they had a lot to play with at all.

[MVC]

The warning voice sounds like the Pearl & Dean bloke that used to announce, "The right hand side of the auditorium is non-smoking".

I'll take my pills and go to bed now.......

[TeePee]

Heh, there was an incident recently where a Cessna 210 chopped off a 5' 7" section of wing, including a fuel tank, on take off in ireland. The plane continued and landed in Jersey. The pilot claimed he only noticed there was a problem when he saw his fuel was lower than expected.

Difference is the hawk's stall speed is probably higher than the cessnas top speed. In their situation it's statistically safer for them to eject than to attempt a landing.

[Skii]

Beanfro - you can't save a plane that has just become airborne, doing only 150 knots with total engine, systems and hydraulic failure

Where in gods name could he land ? you can 'deadstick' a jet in given sufficient height and distance to line up, although without hydraulics a very difficult operation ie without flaps or landing gear.

So what could they have done ? are you saying that a jet with no engine and no hydraulics could turn a tight 180 degrees to land on the same runway, given that the plane was only just above stall speed and at only 200 feet when the incident happened ? Or are you saying that re-starting a jet engine with only a few seconds to spare is a simple matter after a medium sized bird has smashed into the delicate turbine blades at 170 mph ?

OK, lets try that for real then. Fire up a jet simulator like Falcon 4, and take off with no afterburner, shut your engine down 4 seconds after takeoff, and 'save the plane'

Try it

[blueball]

You can stick to your guns all you want mate and your brother is a civvie pilot not military - different ballgame.

...and before anyone wonders I have 1000 hours military fast jet time and I know they couldn't have saved that plane. As far as I am concerned end of argument.

[RVF500]

As someone has mentioned. One of the crew was a military flight instructor. Probably knows a thing or two about flying military jets and what to do when things go wrong. Maybe, just possibly, a bit more than Beanies brother.

Also, as I understand it, fighter jets don't land too well off of a runway. So with crap glide characteristics, landing gear not designed to land in bushes/fields and x thousand pounds of fuel strapped to your back. Are you going to stick with it and 'save the plane'?

If the bloke with 1000 hours ^ says 'bin it' that's good enough for me. I'll take that over Cessna drivers brother.

[[GSV]Trig]

Also look at the point that if they hadnt managed to turn round the plane would of been going down on the airbase most likely, then suddenly your looking at a whole lot of damage and most likely loss of life.

At the end of the day the pilot also has responcibility for the GIB and these kinda decisions have to be made in about half a second and then stuck too, you dont have time to go oooo lets do this, oh hang on its not working, lets do this instead.
Point it at some uninhabited soft stuff and get the hell outta dodge I say.....

[Zak33]

why did he pull up so hard immediately after the strike?

awesme video....I didnt read this thread first....I just looked and I honestly thought he had it sorted too.

Top pilot. Shame he was hurt by the thing designed to save him though

[Skii]

why did he pull up so hard immediately after the strike?

awesme video....I didnt read this thread first....I just looked and I honestly thought he had it sorted too.

Top pilot. Shame he was hurt by the thing designed to save him though

Basically to gain as much height as possible mate, and to get out of the way of any other birds in the same formation / area.

[blueball]

Basically to gain as much height as possible mate, and to get out of the way of any other birds in the same formation / area.

Yup. The first and golden rule is "fly the plane"! the pilot correctly traded speed for height to give himself as much thinking time as possible. Once your speed bleeds back to the optimum value (which is different for every plane) you then go into "glide" mode and that is as good as it is going to get. You make your second eject decision at this point (i.e. now that I have traded speed for height do I have time to do anything about the problem or should I reject the aircraft). Handling an emergency is all about creating time and space for you to look at things calmly. Both guys did a good job in a bad situation.

[Skii]

Any 'hairy' moments during your flying career Bluebell ?

[Skii]

BTW this site is fascinating reading

http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/Stories.html

[dkmech]

Back to the cessna case. How many ejector seats do those things have? I don't think there was much of an option as to what to do with it, was there. Probably no parachute either.

[Skii]

Back to the cessna case. How many ejector seats do those things have? I don't think there was much of an option as to what to do with it, was there. Probably no parachute either.

Nope, but with a cessna you are laking about a light aircraft with excellent gliding characteristics, even at relatively low altitude you can glide without power for a good distance, plus with a cessna you can pretty much land one on any flat ground. A cessna's stall speed is a low as 50mph I believe.

Engine failure in a Cessna is more of an inconvenience compared to a fighter jet.

[dkmech]

I know that (well not the exact stall speed). Just saying that there isn't much choice when you are in a cessna - you either land it (properly or otherwise) or you crash it. Just another point to the debate, not trying to replace any of the other arguments.

[blueball]

Any 'hairy' moments during your flying career Bluebell ?

Not really. I once hit 22 birds on a single sortie from Gibraltar. That tends to concentrate the mind We got the ac back to Gib, repaired it, then it was flown home to Britain and scrapped! Oh and I had chaff and break up shot fired at me from a Russian warship (its a fair cop we were really pissing him off).

Thought about ejecting once but changed my mind