That's okay - We just signed up for a nine billion dollar purchase of F35s for Canada. :)

God help us all when you only have two motors on the F-35 and three on an F-18...Guaranteed you will see more of these type of pictures with the F-35...Even though something catastrophic occurred with this platform, nine times out of ten you a better chance with three motors than you do with only two motors...

PS: The cameraman is one of the lucky few to be at the right place at the right time! AMAZING SHOTS!

Wow, you have NO idea what you are talking about. An F-18 has TWO engines.

You mean two engines dude not three! F35 with only one over water is stupid crap.

@Mongo, Where do you get 3 motors on an 18? Are you counting the APU?

Laff - Sorry sir. That is an F/A 18. There are two engines. Look closely. And look before the explosion. Tends to help.

One engine over water is fine if its a good engine. If you added a second engine to the F-35, you'd raise the unit price to unaffordable status. The F-35 gets too much bad talk. Wait until she gets in the fleet. The stealth plus AESA radar capability will be a welcome addition to any CAW.

Um you guys are all SOOOO dumb..... theres no motors on a JET, there are 4 Jet engines..... Don't believe me? look closely at the ejection seat... that dude is FLYIN! * Note to self.... I want an ejection seat.

Ok Ok theres 2 JETS on the plane, and theres 2 on the seat, but before the pilot ejected it had 4 jets.

SIGH- look again.

There are two motors pushing that pilot out of the cockpit!

The F-35 has the same type of ejection seat so they too have three motors: one pushing the plane forward and the other two to push the pilot out of the cockpit!

This is a decades-old banter joke about the F-16 vs. the A-10 and the A-10 would always win during a duel between the two platforms because an electric jet with only 'three' motors has a tendency to fail and the pilot would be forced to use the 'spare' to escape from the aircraft...

:-)

At RaoulDuke- you are correct- the AESA radar will be 'transformational' in all-aspects of air-air and air-mud combat...I am intrigued to see if the purported 'jamming/frying' technique really works where the pilot can direct the AESA to a focused target and essentially EMP the target...THAT would be almost science-fictiony if you ask me!

motors/jets...jets/motors...Symantics...Pilots call it thrust- whichever way they point you- it's still thrust...I read that Space Invaver essentially gets the ghist of it!

Space Invaver gets a gold star...

at RaoulDuke: Couple AESA with datalink and AIM-9X and AMRAAM on an F-35 and you essentially have the Mini-Cooper version of an F-22 (which of course is the Cadillacs of fighter aircraft) I really hope that the F-35 delivers; there are some great youtube video clips of the platform going through its motions- I believe it will pass with flying colors but the politicians will do what they do to torpedo the development of it for their own selfish reasons...In the process the platform price tag will balloon out of control and force a lot of countries to bow out...

I saw the F-22 do a demonstration and to see its performance envelope tells me that even though it costs almost $100 million...IT'S WORTH EVERY PENNY. I hope that the F-35 can compare just as good.

The fact that you refered to it as a motor was enough for me to label you as a "bonehead". The Raptor is way overpriced for you Canucks. The F-35 is more your budget anyway. Or....maybe you can revive the Avro Arrow project you dummys canned many years ago.

Sorry dude- not a bonehead and not a Canuck...Raptor is NOT available for export due to RDA protection and export controls...Since you are NOT familiar with the Raptor's limitations due to the 'exotic' capabilities the platform retains prevent the U.S. from selling the platform to our allies tells me you are not as informed as you would like to think...

I used the term 'motor' as a generic term for even though a jet engine is a motor and a rocket motor is a motor too- as you can clearly see (?) that two out of four motors are malfunctioning in the frames above, but thank God the two that count in those frames did...

Get over yourself and lighten the Hell up...It's just banter...

the ejection seat is powered with rockets. this is different from the motor/engine hair splitting thing.

Like I said...BANTER...B- A- N- T- E- R...SHEESH!

Main Entry: ¹ban·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈban-tər\
Function: verb
Etymology: origin unknown
Date: 1676
transitive verb 1 : to speak to or address in a witty and teasing manner
2 archaic : delude
3 chiefly Southern & Midland : challengeintransitive verb : to speak or act playfully or wittily

There is a big difference between a Motor which is electric driven, an Engine which is fuel driven and a rocket which is also fuel driven but no internalmoving parts. The CF-18 has two turbofan engines and the ejection seat has a multidirectional rocket. The F-35 has only one engine but from a very dependable platform Pratt and Whitney engines have been used in the f-16 aircraft for 25 or more years and even though we have lost plenty of them there over 3000 in use around the world.

@Mongo: Uh genius im pretty sure the F-18 and all its variants are equipped with only 2 ENGINES not 4 motors...idiot

Mongo went to a public school where he tried to learn math.

SIGH- you didn't get it...

I APOLOGIZE TO ALL FOR INITIALLY REPLYING TO THIS THREAD...IT WAS A JOKE! No sh-t - I kinow it has two engines...SHEESH!

Mongo,

Gee, I bet you'll never say "motor" again when you mean jet engine. :-)

Alan-

How true you are in that statement...

:-)

I apologize to the aerospace world and mostly to AT1 Raymond Bega, USN-Retired...Only he knows the truth as to what happened to the CF-18; the rest of us in his eyes are morons...

My Father had 26 years in Air Force @ McGuire AFB and retired a Lt.Colonel and I pratically grew up on that Base I know a few things about Fighter Jets! 1) All Aircraft have Jet Engines and are not called motors, just ask an airplane crew chief! 2) All ejection seats have rockets not engines! Ive read some other of these posts and want to comment. The A-10 cannot out manuver an F-16, Sorry! As for "engines" The F-16, F-35, F-22, AV-8B Harrier II have 1 engine. The F-15, F/A-18, F-14 Tomcat(retired) F-4 Phantom(ret), A-10 Warthog and the F-117 have 2 engines. So basically Fighters either have 1 or 2 engines, none have had 3 and when there are 4 engines than that aircraft would be a Bomber such as the B-52, B-1B and the B-2. Sorry just wanted to add my comments and not calling anyone stupid!

Mike-

Time to reassess: F-22 indeed has 2 x powerplants...A-10 has a superior maximum sustained turn rate- meaning, in a dogfight, the A-10 will be able to turn in on the F-16 and fire off either an AAM or go guns depending on the distance prior to the F-16 being able to do so- Which is a moot point since the F-16 would never want to get in a knife fight with an A-10; they would just launch an AMRAAM at range and finish the A-10 since its radar cross section is MUCH larger than the F-16's and the A-10 lacks any form of radar.

The banter about more than 2 x 'motors' were regarding the ejection seat and the powerplants pushing the aircraft...I think you came late to the dance and we have killed the debate ad naseum except for the fact that AT1 Raymond Bega know everything about the F-18 and we are all morons...Cheers!

Could ANYONE tell me who makes the F-18?

It looks like a engine failure, one of the exaust nozzels are not closed, as if the engine was running in the first picture.

What great photography. The first picture you can SEE the nozzle on the left engine is fully open....and the right is closed. Makes me believe the left engine is malfunctioning. The first shot of impact shows the flame shooting out of the left engine only.....probably raw fuel that didn't burn in the combustion chamber. Can't know for sure what really happened though. Great pictures. I don't think I could've stood there still enough to get the shots.

McDonnell Douglas made the original F-18 but Boeing now manufactures it...

Was I right, AT1 Raymond Bega USN-Retired or do you have more factual data than what I presented to American Man???

McDonnell-Douglas makes the F-18. It might just be called Douglas now...and owned by boeing.

Mongo,

Unfortunately we live in a world of geniuses. Even if you broke down your humor word by word and explained how it works, someone would argue with you that it is in fact not humor but a joke, or not a joke but humor, someone would ultimately argue it is neither but maybe a good ribbing. Then you would have the tool that argues you hate American made technology and tactics, the Rocky series and kittens.

-Donut sends

//

How true your statement is, Donut!

I tried to reflect back on an experience I had while I was at Ft Bragg working with the A-10 squadron there and the needless banter between the F-16 squadron down the road from them. It was between two USAF units and I tried to supplant that to the situation in the photos above. HAD I KNOWN THAT I WOULD HAVE CAUSED A SH-T STORM, I would have NEVER posted anything in the beginning. Am I a aerospace engineer? Hardly. Am I a fighter pilot? Not even close. But I did have the honor of working with some of those professionals that allowed me some insight as to aerodynamics, tactics, techniques, and procedures of these airframes are, and exposure to what thick skin is all about from those professionals.

Trust me and please spread the word- I know that the F-18 has two powerplants and the F-35 has only one (not including the other one that Congress is ramming down the PEO office's throat)...

PEO- Program Executive Office. It's where decisions are made as to the development of any program of record. They are the ones responsible for the cost, performance, and schedule of the airframe being developed...

Cheers!

Mongo,

Wow. Some people have no sense of humor. Way to break it down so the average person can understand it. It's too bad the people who post on here aren't quite up to that level.

Cheers.

Mongo an F18 only has two engines not three.

Glad the pilot did well in the ejection.

This is incredible. I can't believe we're seeing pictures of this.

Sad that the fact air crafts have no insurance...but with that said, that pilot must have skills to eject at the last minute and live or just really had luck on his side.

Mongo....the F-35 is a SINGLE engine jet and the F/A-18 (or CF-18) has TWO engines. That was a NACES ejection seat that the pilot used...it is self righting as seen in the first photo.It is a zero-zero seat.

Thanks, Dave- I appreciate the fact that you didn't get it either...No sh!t- I know how many powerplants each platform has...

Gentlemen...any "motors" that are found on either the F18 or F35 will be in the hydraulic or electrical system. Each of the aircraft are propelled using jet (turbine) engines that require air and fuel to mix in the combustion chamber. Yes, the F18 has two of these and the F35 has one and a prayer book attached to the pilots check list. The ejection seats are "rocket" powered, just like the shuttle and other rockets this does not need an intake of air. It is self contained for a short burst of get me the hell outta here energy conversion. Neither jet nor rocket engines qualify as motors.

As for the glory of stealth and directional control and radarized vision...I'm sure all that will serve the ground pounder well as he faces remotely activated IED's and snipers hiding in rocks and morter's carried around in bags on donkey backs. But let us all smile as we understand the F35 production/assembly companies will continue to earn salaries to buy their girlfriends nice BMer's and give their stock holders dividends to continue membership at the best golf resorts.

If GOD had meant jet aircraft to fly he would have put propellers on them.

Mongo,

You truly do understand aircraft, and I feel you made a honest effort to educate those in this thread. I am a pilot and a 25 year veteran of the Boeing Co, good job!

u mean our tax payers money :) the press release for Makay read on msn was about 8 billion for the F35 to reach 18 billion by 2014. why do we need to spend such money when we rely on our neighboor for defense :) Moreover, others will still hover over the antartic scannign for oil... We buy toys that we do not use! isnt better that we return the money back to the tax payer you and I.

for the pics, indeed the camera guy was damn lucky, with the scenario for the plane to stall, might be pushin it to the limits (only the pilot knows) or cheap maintenance

the F35 if utube it it can fly/land vertical its a damn good toy I beleive faster too...

Wow, this banter with aero-nerds is astonishing. Someone in the thread mentioned AD NAUSEUM and I agree. Who cares whether it's motor, engine or rocket? Leave it to geeks to entirely miss the point because they're too busy showing the world how knowledgeable (and rigid) they are.

Geez, unbunch yer panties, why dontcha? :-)

All current generation military ejection seats are powered by rockets under the seat. The only ones not rocket powered are the ejection seat simulators, which last I knew were/are powered by compressed air. I remember using one back in the mid 70's at what was then NAS Miramar when I obtained what was known then as a "back seat licence". This was part of a training program that allowed people to qualify to ride in the back seat of two place jet fighters, as long as you could pass the flight physical. I used to catch rides in the back seat of F-4S Phantoms and TA-4F attack trainer aircraft. Both aircraft were equipped with the Douglas EscapePac. Managed to get plenty of stick time on the TA-4F's. I hab a blast! F-18 Hornets are equipped with what I assume are later generations of the McDonnel Douglas EscapePac seats or with latest generation Martin Baker seats depending on the country flying it.

Same "arguement" goes for "magazine" and "clip". Purists, of course, choose "magazine".

A rose is a rose... it could be called $#@*&^, it's still sweet... and purty.

'nuff.

mo·tor

(mtr)

n. 1. Something, such as a machine or an engine, that produces or imparts motion.
2. A device that converts any form of energy into mechanical energy, especially an internal-combustion engine or an arrangement of coils and magnets that converts electric current into mechanical power.3. A motor vehicle, especially an automobile: "It was a night of lovers. All along the highway ... motors were parked and dim figures were clasped in revery" (Sinclair Lewis).

adj. 1. Causing or producing motion: motor power.
2. Driven by or having a motor.3. Of or for motors or motor vehicles: motor oil.4. Of, relating to, or designating nerves that carry impulses from the nerve centers to the muscles.5. Involving or relating to movements of the muscles: motor coordination; a motor reflex.

v. mo·tored, mo·tor·ing, mo·tors
v.intr. To drive or travel in a motor vehicle.
v.tr. To carry by motor vehicle.

So I guess we don't have to rename motorcycles "engine"cycles. Growing up during the Mercury and Apollo space flights, rocket MOTORS was a term in the news often.

ok, nice photos, but your all wrong the f-18 has 6 jets. 2 on the plane, 2 on the seat, and 2 on the canopy! take a look at the first pic. and besides, no matter if its got a prop, a jet or whatever else. being able to fly is just plain amazing anyway!

Look what else happens in Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BX1dc1zwatI

What a view the pilot had

Your all wrong. It's 2 jet engines and 2 rocket motors! And with less engines there's less to go wrong !

The last time I was in a B52 there were 8 Turbojet engines. :)

The aircraft rolls to the right and noses in. In the photos before it hits the ground, the nozzles on the right engine are closed and the nozzles on the left engine are open. This, quite possibly, indicates that the right engine had lost power and was failing or in the process of failing. In the photo when it is hitting the ground, there is flame coming out of only the left engine. This is, possibly, further indication of a right engine failure, or spool-down, prior to the crash.

Gentlemen, basic knowledge, and the terms are not interchangeable. motors are electric, engines are combustion.

Hey Ironbar. A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine of a repeating firearm. Ammunition for the M1 used in WWII were held together with a clip and pushed down into the chamber of the rifle. When the last round was fied the clip would spring from the receiver making a "ching" sound. Unfortunately this would alert your enemy that you were out of ammo. A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device within or attached to a repeating firearm.

Hats off to the photographer,I don't think we could have ever had better photos.

So does the stupid pilot have to pay for the aircraft in one go or can he pay like $20 a week?

Or do I, and the rest of y'all have to pay for it?

I'm not smart enough to crash planes so somebody please answer..

Great Photos???

Please, build a pile of 20 million dollars in 1 dollar bills and set fire to them against a starlit sky at night..

that would make a great photo..

so long as I as I wasn't paying for it..

Airshows????

Show me planes leaving/landing on time in Atlanta, and i'll be impressed.

Wanna fool around in a jet? Go to Iraq.

Mongo-22407

Not sure where you are getting your information, but the F18 Hornet has 2 engines in the rear, not one. The F16 may be the one your refering to, it only had one.

If you look at the pictures, the very first one, of the plane flying sideways with its nose pointing down, you can clearly see the 2 nozzels at the tail section. Might want to verify your information there.

Thsniper-

You are very astute, but you failed to read the thread entirely...I am fully aware that there are two POWERPLANTS pushing that aircraft and one of them apparently failed...Now there is a thrid pushing the pilot out of the cockpit...Read the thread and you will see...Cheers!

I could of shown all of you the error of your thinking . Almost 60 comments and none of you got it right .
What you see in the first picture are the flame from the ejection rocket , attached to the ejection seat .
Now , may I explain ? There is but one rocket and one flame from the rocket . Does everybody understand ? The other flame is coming out of the backside of the pilot . That guy can pack away some beans . Will someone get the pilot a cold roll of toilet paper ?

Let's clear the air, so to speak, about ejection seats in F-18's specifically and all in general. There is a whole lot of confusion and some really inaccurate statements on this blog pertaining to both. I feel moved to speak as a result.
The F-18 was originally configured with the Martin Baker SJU5/6 ejection seat, all A&B models, and early production C&D's as well, these later being retrofitted with the SJU-17 (NACES) seat, which is also Fitted to E, F&G models (super hornets). The MK10 is in the Tornado and others but not the F-18's in question. Canadian Hornets have had SJU-5/6 from the get go, although with the European style harness, which has been the alleged source of several fatalities in otherwise survivable ejections. The SJU5/6 has well known shortcomings, amongst those being somewhat unstable, and also being equipped with an 18 Ft diameter chute which has a very high sink rate, equivalent to jumping off a two story building with no chute. The NACES (not to be confused with the ACES II) has a 23 footer, is much more stable and is equipped, like the ACES II, with a computer which picks from three available modes of operation, dependent on altitude and airspeed. In any event, neither seat has self righting capability, nor does any other operational seat to include the much vaunted (and rightly so) Zvezda K-36. Giving that impression In this case is the fact that the aircraft is rolling right, and careful analysis will show that the seat is only partially upright. Find the video, it explains a lot. Also, you need airspeed to inflate the chute, it doesn't care about vertical. See my description of the 4th gen seat below. Here at NASA, we upgraded or F-18A/B (preproduction and VERY early production) to the NACES standard with P3I mod a few years ago. We have heard from some of our Canadian friends in the business that they may follow suit. Not cheap, but definitely worth the expense in my layman's opinion.
There has been much effort expended in making a truly flyable seat, going back to the Crest program (awesome theory, integration was the real issue. Latest effort was the 4th Gen seat, a highly modified ACES II chassis with JDAM guidance and an H shaped catapult with pintles (throttles) at the four corners of the H, using Amraam sustainer motors as power. That baby really flies and maneuvers as necessary for optimum performance, nominal trajectory 500 feet. Just before personnel chute deployment, it rotates feet first while still climbing. In this attitude the chute inflates, and the crewmember is released at the top of the trajectory. Will we get it? An issue of dollars, and not of yet As for Phantom seats, in 30 years on them, on and off, I never saw any operator with other than The Martin-Baker Mk H7 (the zero-zero seat. Mk 5 was used previously, if memory serves. Escapac (Father of ACESII) could have only happened, to my knowledge, in a factory bird, but was not to be standard equipment.
In any event, it can be seen here that not being fully versed in a subject as one might think does not make one stupid, but should temper our attitude somewhat, and leave us a little more forgiving of our fellow humans. Oh yes, hats of to the Canadian safety techs on this one, you have done well. For those who don't know, they must study and earn a degree to get their certification, and their work is not solely on ejection seats, but all pilot safety and survival equipment, and breathing oxygen systems as well ,as we do here at Dryden Flight Research center (and then some).
Timeline of Zero-Zero seats for us? The F-106 (non-rotational ) seat was zero-zero and had a rocket catapult, and those the bulk of those babies were built from 59-60, long before the F-18 was a YF-17 Cobra twinkle in anyone's eye.
For those curious, my limited credentials follow: Started career on ejection systems in 1977 (USAF), Since have worked on F-106, T-33, F-4, B-52, OA/T-37, F-15 (all), F-16, T-38, B-1B, B-2, F-22(a little), F-18,SR-71(a little) and some one- off systems as well. Well, now I'm an old fart working in QA, but still manage to work some. As my friends here remind me so well "Steve, you used to be a mechanic!"
Oh, well.
Punchout! (still learning and still havin fun!)

Forgot in my other post, The seat has ONE rocket motor, two pair of nozzles, giving the impression of two rockets. The catapult doesn't leave a signature.

Punchout! (Steve S.)

Steve S
Thank you for your information . I was just trying to tell a cheep fart joke . But still , will someone please get that pilot a roll of cold toilet paper out of the frig . That has to be a Hot Seat . L O L

as i read i am stunned cars boats and piston driven planes have Engines,Motors are electric and Jets like the one that is pictured here has Turbines you all sound like a bunch of jack asses if you don't know what you are talking about it is better to keep your mouth shut "even a fool is counted wise when he holds his tongue"

Gee Mongo-22407, I worked on FA-18A+ aircraft for 7 years. Could you please tell me where the 3rd engine is? Or are you counting the APU as an engine?

bbstacker, the 3rd engine is next to your reading glasses!

Did you read the whole post? If you would have you would have read that

IT'S A JOKE!!!!

But the JOKE was that he has three motors (=2 plane "motors" and one ejection "motor")

Since we have learned about motors, engines in various aircraft and ejection seats and the fact that people don't read complete posts

To add to the semantic batle there are probably dozens if not hundreds of ELECTRIC motors on the plane but i don't have the diagrams on me now.

And oh my. A plane probably does not have diagrams but blue prints or they may be called air-pdf's now for all i know ;)

PS ;) <- indication that was a joke!

:D

I'm glad the pilot is alive and well.

To those bantering about engines and such:
An ejection seat does not have a jet engine. It has a rocket booster, usually solid rocket or gas. So please stop debating that.

The F/A-18 Has 2 GE Jet Turbines.

The F-35 has a single Pratt and Whitney turbine.

To those debating the reliability of a single engine aircraft:
Ever heard of an F-16? Pretty successful plane. How about every fighter (Save the P-38, and ME262) in WWII? And those were internal combustion engines, which aren't nearly as reliable as today's jet engines.

And if nothing else-if you don't know, wikipedia.

WOW, where do you get your information?

Twin JET engines for flying, ROCKET engines are in the ejection seat, not jet engine!!! ...SHEESH!

A quote from Mike Mangano

"My Father had 26 years in Air Force @ McGuire AFB and retired a Lt.Colonel and I pratically grew up on that Base I know a few things about Fighter Jets! 1) All Aircraft have Jet Engines......."

You are incorrect - SORRY

There are quite a few aircraft that have piston engines, e.g. many light aircraft.

Cigarman1, you are exactly the right person to tell whether I was remembering correctly. I did my rides out of MCAS Yuma. I owe my life to the the ejection seat techs and the Douglas EscapePac seats as I once had to depart the back of an F-4 in a hurry out over the Arizona desert when the aircraft I was in suffered a complete and catastrophic hydraulics failure! Everything worked as advertised and I landed unhurt and in one piece other that a heck of a sore back for about a week.

I thought I was the only one who saw this lol.

To Mark B -547345, msg #5

Dumb, dumb remark, Mark. But then I guess we have to suffer the pacifists among us . . .

To markB. (Quote) - "There goes another BILLION dollars or more of our tax money at work. But hey, it's only money?"

Yeah, what's the going rate for the price of freedom? Ask that pilot, oh wait, just ask anyone in the military.

They're only a million or so each.

Try about $35-$45 Million Each.

Thank you ET-285391. At least someone isn't making up numbers.

It Canadian money anyway, thats like monopoly money right?

To Jim W - "Suffer" the pacifists among us??? Pretty stupid remark to you, too. Some of us actually believe the commandment that states, "Thou shalt not kill" - and that includes war. Some of us are sick of the U.S. invading other countries so all the macho dudes can shoot and bomb innocent children, and the president can strut that Texas strut. It's been all downhill since Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex. Of course, everyone's grateful the pilot is okay but, really, do you think all these multi-trillion dollar contracts for cool military stuff has anything to do with our freedom? Do you really think the Iraq war for oil had anything to do with our freedom? Everything in this country is about money and greed. The military is no exception.

money that ensures you have the continued freedom to post stupid remarks

For the idiots on this thread believing that this is an American airplane and a loss of taxpayers’ money, you should be comforted in finding out that this plane was a Canadian fighter jet. CF-18= Canadian Force/fighterjet-18. Be educated before you complain.

Deborah, to paraphrase Dan Aykroyd speaking to Jane Curtin, "Deborah, you ignorant slut!" You really know nothing of which you speak. After reading several of your posts, I'm pretty confident of that.

Deborah - Do you know what sacrifice means? Probably not. After 22-years of active military duty, let me explain. Power projection = Being present with big guns = detering the bad guys from blowing up your favorite tourist resort. It costs alot to keep your obnoxious butt safe. I'd much rather have spent the 13 years I did spend away from home, being with my kids and awesome wife. Instead, I was keeping the world safe for clowns like you.

For those that do appreciate the sacrifices of the military, this veteran says "It was an honor to serve for you".

Deborah, Deborah, Deborah *SIGH* You seem to have forgotten a little piece of history called The Crusades. You know, or maybe not, that little war inspired by the Christian church a couple of hundred years ago. Google it before getting all sanctimonious next time.

To all the service men and women out there, past or present. "Thank You!"

just because the military is necessary, does not mean you throw unlimited money at it.

just because health care saves lives doesn't mean you throw unlimited money at it.

solders are necessary, and so are nurses and trash collectors.

when was the last time an american soldier fought for our concrete (not just theoretical) freedom?

wwII. undebatable for most folks. all the wars since? up for a lot of debate how much they protected our freedom. not saying they did or didn't, just that it's very much a live debate.

a lot of death and destruction delt out in those wars. for unclear ends. the politicians and generals are to blame for that, not the fighting, bleeding soldier.

just trying to make the point that because someone fights for freedom, it's not as holy, respectable and admirable as it's sometimes painted. some fight for noble motivations. some fight to pull a trigger. keep it's value in perspective. without garbage collectors, many of us would be dying from dysentery, typhoid fever, cholera, and numerous parasites.

for those, freedom would be second on the list.

TO Jack-1963518: "GOD WILLS IT!!!"

Kingdom of Heaven...Awesome movie!

Hear, hear, Lucky-

I too served, but when I got out, I found life to be pretty pleasant compared to the S-holes I served in. Being faraway and missing out from family and friends served to me as a calling- knowing that being in the military is a calling, not something to be taken lightly. But at the same time, I served so that those that felt compelled to complain were able to complain freely. It is unfortunate that some feel the need to be a little less appreciative of our activities and experiences, but as part of the reason why you and I put on that uniform is to defend their freedom to do just what Deborah and others like her just did- albeit much less informed than others, but still it is her right to pose her opinion FREELY. I applaud her for making her remarks, and I salute your retort, but alas- We cannot defend the people's ignorance for not appreciating the freedoms we offer them.

I wish that some of these 'liberals' would do a history lesson and understand that even that pilot- demonstrating the capabilities (and when the plane if healthy its capabilities are immense) of that CF-18 allows their country and the bystanders to see that they have national pride - just like we do here in America and it allows others to be inspired. Even after this Class-A mishap, people are inspired to determine what went wrong and prevent this from happening again even for the F-35.

People like Deborah might feel that we are in this for greed. I challenge her to locate the oil that we raped Iraq for. If that is the case, why did we pay almost $5/gal for gas a couple of years ago? Why is gas still at $2.50/gal? I weep for Deborah and others like her that believe we 'invade' countries just for the sake of it. If they are against the war, that's fine. They can be upset at the way things unfold. But don't take it out on us 'macho' warriors of the such. We are instruments of power, after diplomacy fails. When diplomacy fails, blame the leaders not the warriors. We do not act without conscience. We have family and friends and neighbors that we care about and sooner or later we have to come home...And when we DO come home it is WITH HONOR. Not one military member WANTS to goto war, on the countrary, we abhor it. We love life, and we cherish life. But we are willing to sacrifice our lives so that people like Deborah have the opportunity to voice her opinion freely without fear of persecution. But I would wish that people like Deborah would instead not point fingers at the US Military servicemember but instead goto the voting booth AFTER they have had an opportunity to fully understand WITH AN OPEN MIND what the international situation is really all about. Until then, the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces will remain ready, highly-trained, highly-disciplined, willing and able to put their lives on the line and stand up to the 5-meter ready line and quote Isaiah 6:8 when their time is called upon...

Sorry that I had to use Deborah in my examples...

Amen to all the men and women that are still there waiting for their turn to come home again...God Bless them all...

Deborah Cox,

Go tell that "thou shall not kill" thing to the Taliban or Al Qaeda and see where it gets you. You'll have your head chopped off or get stoned to death. Think about that for a minute, because that is what it is going to be like for your grandchildren and great-grandchildren if we don't do something about it NOW! Wake the hell up!

TO Mongo-22407 I'll have to check that out!

Deborah Cox

You should be thankful for men like this pilot, whom are willing to sacrifice everything so that you may live in freedom and have the freedom to express your opinion freely about anything you want. As for "thow shalt not kill", killing has been going on since Cain killed Abel and is not going to stop because you are offended by killing. Have you ever read Exodus about Passover? Who was doing the killing there? If you can't remember, it was God himself. Am I trying to say, that killing is alright or good. Sorry, that is over my paygrade, but I do not believe that God does not want us to protect ourselves from being killed. Unfortunatly the bible is a complicated read for me as it is for many. Jesus rebuked peter for protecting Jesus, but then also told those who did not have a sword to go buy one. I don't kill anything anymore if I can help it and yes I like a good ribeye just as much as anyone, I just don't want to kill anymore. I quit school at 17 and begged my parents to let me join the army while we still had a draft going and joined the infantry to seek my fantasys of glory and fame. All I have learned is that the only person who deserves that is god himself. Keep this in mind when you want to condemn the people keeping you and me and everyone else safe. The soldier ( generic term) and Jesus Christ are the only ones who willingly give their lives to protect the rest of us. If america isn't to your liking, try any of the Muslim countries and don a Burka and let me know how appreciated you feel after a few weeks.

Do not waste space on people like Deborah. She is the same type of person who will spit on a returning soldier, but if caught in a crossfire quickly dashes behind that same soldier, praying he will save her mangy soul

Deborah, take your hogwash and go to Washington. There you can tell our worthless, cowardly civilian leadership how you feel. And, by the way, do it before 01/20/2013, when we finally kick that SOB Osama Obama out of office!

Deborah Cox

Some of us are sick of the U.S. invading other countries so all the macho dudes can shoot and bomb innocent children, and the president can strut that Texas strut.

#5.7 - Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:47 PM EDT

No way! Obama knows how to do the Texas strut??

Deborah, you're wasting your time with these people. Since very few Americans really know the horrors of war, they act like they're some kind of special creation. The lack of that experience makes them a little wet in the pants as they have some fictionalized hollywood image dancing around in their heads of romanticism and such nonsense.

Yeah, Deborah- Listen to Rudy...Rudy knows all!

Whatever...

The commandment, in any modern translation is, "You shall not murder." It's clear in the Hebrew; it's not commanding pacifism nor vegetarianism.

$$$$ It's a CANADIAN figher! The Canadian taxpyers pay US (The United States) for the plane not US taxpayers. Argh!

There are a number of posts against the military, war, etc.

War is indescribably horrible, with countless deaths and injuries, some to the combatants, some to innocents.

The cost to societies is huge.

The one thing worse than fighting a war, is the consequence of NOT fighting.

FREEDOM IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR.

Support our international troops in the war against terror.

the pilot is safe. dodged a big bullet!

now that that's established, the lover of flying machines is free to lament the destruction of a winged creature.

Laccrco,

There are several amazing videos of this crash on canada.com

It's an F18 - 9 billion to the skunk works for the F35s

Didn't get hurt? Funny, caption said, "undetermined injuries." He probably has a sprained back, two broken legs, and a permanent hunch.

true, true. safe IS premature. hope the pilot's ok.

That would be awesome. Not very effective, but awesome.

It's only money; we'll print more! Ask Barry Obama- he's got the U.S. Treasury working in overtime to cover that $1.7 trillion bill he signed into law- All I know is my taxes will be out of control next year...NICE.

More nonsense, private companies develop fighter aircraft on their own dime, and then compete against other companies, including foreign companies to win a contract. There is a HUGE amount of risk involved in getting involved in a competition for a military contract.

Yes, but you get a nice buffer state between you and the USSR and that's worth more.

AFGuy can you explain then why they are always over budget. The new 235's are 100 billion over stated bid amount for a couple hundred conventional war jets. What do they do? Bid off the Pentagon specs and then put the instruments in at extra costs later? Military Industrial Complex. Yea, they should be paying royalties.

af guy,

don't kid yourself the military contractors develop at such high risk. the military has to keep a competive market going out there. plenty of subsidies and contracts are spread around to keep a creative, competitive wonderworld going on to provide the next generation of hardware, software and toys the military needs to stay up on war tech. i'm sure if a company was left high and dry, it was with careful consideration of what their potential future contributions could be.

It's ENGINES in thh aircraft bozos...ENGINES, not motors. And it's ROCKETS not jet engines on the seats..ROCKETS....got it???

whatever, Joe Nameless...

Unlike the US, Canada doesn't have a huge deficit, is energy self sufficient and has water up the ying yang. So they can afford a few million to go up in flames.

Correct. I don't think the pilot had time to straighten his back, let alone his neck.

it'd take a lot of discipline and training for me to keep my head up after i pulled that lever.

my mind would probably be on what my shorts were going to look like when and if i landed.

Me too! I would have slid out of the seat from the big brown stain if I had been in his position. Talk about being shot out of a cannon! It definitely takes a lot of guts to fly one of these machines and this was just for show. Just think of flying one of those though a SAM site.

Look it up in the dictionary. An engine is a device that does work. A lever is an engine. It's where the term "Gin" comes from in "Cotton Gin". En-GIN-e, get it? It was an engine to remove the seeds from raw cotton. It's a fairly archaeic definition, but the true one.

A motor is an engine that provides motive force. It's an engine that moves something. The big things in an F-18 that push it through the air are motors. They are engines as well, but a specific type of engine.

That's right - They are fun to watch at an air show.

I am a Canadian taxpayer, and I have the right to see what my military can do, including fighter jets flying aerial stunts at a public airshow. And 150+ Canadians have died in Afghanistan so far, not to mention the 100,000+ who died in the World Wars - to protect your right to whine about the airshows.

Bill-

I have worked side-by-side with your comrades and I thank them for their service...Trust me- we American taxpayers like watching the pretty planes do the impossible too...

:-)

Hate to admit it, but you can thank the Russians for that technique: originally our ACES ejection seat would just propell the pilot straight out of the cockpit regardless of aircraft orientation and at times would drive the pilot right into the ground...Russian have MUCH more experience in losing aircraft so they had more 'instances' of learning from their engineering mistakes early in the development stages...

Cool, I didn't know that. I can't believe how safe high speed aircraft can be. Thanks for that.

If I remember correctly from my F-18 indoc class this was the first or one of the first US aircraft to receive the zero/zero ejection seat. Capable of safely (if you consider being 2 inches shorter for a month safe) eject a pilot from zero altitude and zero forward velocity. The other thing I remember from that class was a little saying that still sticks in my mind after 20 years. "If you can't fly Grumman, you'd better fly Martin Baker" Grumman being the then manufacturer of both the F-14 and A-6, Martin Baker being the manufacturer of ejection seats.

TKNIPE

You are VERY wrong. The seat in a Canadian F-18 is a Martin-Baker Mark 10. That seat is ONLY a zero/zero seat at a near level aircraft attitude. The ACES II is a zero/zero intelligent seat that has been in the F-15, F-16, A-10 and B-1 which ALL came before the F-18.

The Mark 10 is a cheap pile of junk and you will not find it in many front line modern aircraft. And the low survival rate of Canadian F-18 ejections is all the proof I need for that statement. One thing to the credit of this Mk 10 ejection is the picture of the pilot leaving the aircraft. The aircraft is near inverted, but the seat is nearly upright a second after the canopy seperated and the seat launched. You need to be upright to get a good chute before hitting the ground and to it's credit it did it's job that day.

And for the confused, the F-18 has 2 jet engines, the F-35 currently has 1, and the ejection seat has 2 for directional control, not including the seat launch gun. All of the seat engines are solid propellant ROCKET engines, not jets folks. Jets take to long to spin up to even remotely consider for use where fractions of seconds make the difference in life and death. Rocket engines can produce full thrust upon ignition. Jets - well they may produce full thrust in under a minute in extreme conditions but they would not last very long if they did that often. Just consider how long it took to start engines on the last airline flight you were on. Good thing the aircraft was on fire and those engines had to pull you out!!! Even using a Jet Fuel Starter (JFS) which is what most modern jets use to quick start it is still somewhat slow.

The F-4 Phantom also had a zero-zero capability that was proven a couple of times actually, at least the E and G models did, not positive about the other models.

URThat Stupid

You are very wrong, check out the article at

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/dfs-dsv/pub/nr-sp/index-eng.asp?id=9895

The Martin Baker Mk 10 was the original seat, it has, to the best of my knowledge, been replaced by the Mk 14 NACES seat in all CF18s.

As for you assertion of a low rate of survival, I recall only a few Cf18 ejections that weren't survived, most deaths were due not ejecting.

A little forensic guessing here:

I think the starboard engine failed for three reasons:

1. As above, the port engine nozzle is open, the normal high-thrust position for that nozzle.

2. The aircraft is rolling to its right, which means the thrust is coming from the left.

3. As the aircraft hits the ground, it is the port engine exploding out of the nozzle, which means it was operating.

I'm not part of any inquiry team, but used to be in the F-4 days of the USAF, so only a guess.

Excellent assessment from visual cues in the evidence provided...I am sure reviewing the wreckage will reveal which engine was still producing thrust based on the RPMs of the turbines during impact and the damage they cause to surrounding material...If they are lucky, they will be able to recover the harddrive of the guncamera footage (if the Canadiens retrofitted that platform with it) othewise magnetic tape might be harder to recover to do forensics...But in the past, accident investigation boards have been able to recover A LOT of stuff from crash sites...Unfortunately, the odds are against the pilot that it was mechanical failure...Somehow everytime I read up on an accident, it always turns into 'Operator Error'...I really hope that's NOT the case...

A little info on the nozzles.... At idle, the nozzles are open so the engine produces little thrust. As soon as you come off idle, the nozzle closes to increase (exhaust) gas velocity. Nozzles stay closed up thru MIL power, 'till the afterburner lights. It then opens in stages as as the P7 (outlet) pressure increases. I've seen nozzles blow apart when you lit the burner and they failed to open...

But back to the pics... the right (starboard) engine is the one producing thrust, otherwise the nozzle wouldn't be closed. Port engine is most definitely shut down (compressor stall maybe?), as the nozzle is open and no sign of a burner flame.

The reason for the flame from the left engine at impact.... fuel puddling in the burner cans, that lit off from the fireball.

CNN just played a video of this, and it's definitely the port engine producing thrust.

I've watched the CNN video, which is on my DVR, at least a dozen times now. The video starts with the aircraft well behind the power curve in a very high angle of attack, high power setting, at relatively low speed. All of the thrust is from the port engine, so I'm going to assume it starts post-incident and possibly in a recovery mode.

It suddenly starts yawing right, followed almost immediately by a roll to the right (expected with such asymmetric thrust and its inherent yaw), when the ejection sequence is activated. The loss of control in an engine-out such as this could be contributed to the pilot, but with only yards to the ground, there really isn't any way to blame him/her.

The video is from the right front, completely different from the still photos.

For Jim Dent:

I'm a Vietnam-era F-4 back-seater; I'm not sure what your credentials are.

Unless the rules of physics have drastically changed since then, nozzles are closed at idle, not open as you say. They are also closed at "off" as in "flameout". Here's a nice picture of an F-18 on the ramp completely powered down:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Afterburner.jpg

At military power they are nearly fully open, and fully open in afterburner. Please don't base your posts on interpretations of Wikipedia articles or similar.

I've never heard of a nozzle being "blown apart", since they are nearly fully open in mil before you even squeeze to burner.

Thanks.

More Nozzle information. The exhaust nozzle is a variable position duct. This means that at different Throttle Lever Angles (TLA), input by the pilot, the nozzle will open and close as needed to produce thrust based on specific engine pressure ratios, based on things like altitude, barometric pressure, and temperature. The exhaust duct will close (convergent duct) and open (divergent duct) to maximize thrust output.

It is not a direct 1 to 1 correlation, but as the operator moves the throttle handle from idle (15-20 degrees TLA) to mil power (83-90 degrees TLA), the engine control moves the nozzle from 100% open at idle to fully closed at mil power. During transition from mil to augmentation(“after burn”) the engine control begins to open the nozzle again from fully closed at 91 degrees TLA (stage I aug.) to fully open again at stage II augmentation (130 degrees TLA).

HeeNow, whats with the sarcasm?

My credentials? First off, I worked on F-4's back in the seventies. I suspect you never went near one. The rules haven't changed... Nozzles open at idle, closed when you push the throttles up, open when you light the burners. J79's work the same as the rest of them. Worked the same on F-111... P&W TF-30's, F-15 and F-16.... P&W F-100

40 years as an aircraft mechanic/pilot, currently teaching aircraft maintenance at a part 147 school.

I find it interesting that you tell me not to base my posts on wikipedia articles... then put up a link to wikipedia to prove your case. That mean it's OK for you to use Wiki... but not me?

You claim you've never seen a nozzle blown apart. I don't doubt that... you've probable never been around one. I've seen several.

Bite me @!$%#...

No, but your mom did until it wore out when you were eight.