PDA

View Full Version : F 18 crash in Canada


Loose rivets
11th Jan 2013, 17:22
I have just received an e with an astonishingly clear set of photos of the pilot bailing just two seconds before the fireball.

I've no idea of the real date and don't know if they've been on a military forum, but I haven't seen them. I would have remembered!!!!

No time to put them all in the Bucket.

Anyone interested in such a project, I would be glad to forward my e to them.


R

11Fan
11th Jan 2013, 17:48
You have to go back a few years.

CuP425i0Rn4

11Fan
11th Jan 2013, 17:51
July 2010 to be precise....

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/421993-cf-18-down-lethbridge-alberta.html

Loose rivets
11th Jan 2013, 20:26
Yes, they're the ones, thanks. I'll tidy this thread away in a few hours.

421dog
11th Jan 2013, 22:37
Oh , that would be a "CF 18" not just a generic f-18...

dat581
12th Jan 2013, 00:34
Do Canadian fighter pilots call it the CF18? Seams a silly idea just for a spot light, an ILS and some darker paint which are the only differences from US Navy F18A's. ( Pre IMP ).

TWT
12th Jan 2013, 00:43
The Oz ones are F/A-18's.

Buster Hyman
12th Jan 2013, 00:56
TWT...that's because we bought F*** All of them!!

TWT
12th Jan 2013, 01:37
75 of the A+B models is FA ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet_in_Australian_service

KAG
12th Jan 2013, 02:58
CF18 crash and Canada has been, unfortunately, a very famous sentence for many, many years already.

Great civilian aviation in Canada, I loved it.
But the CF 18s keep falling down the sky.

A bit old those Canadian CF 18? Have they replaced them yet?

Loose rivets
12th Jan 2013, 03:23
Learning a bit here. Better not zap the thread for a while then.

helicopterray
12th Jan 2013, 03:43
The aircraft has an F/A designation, (Fighter/Attack), to indicate it's designated role.

All Canadian fighter aircraft have the CF designation.

dat581
12th Jan 2013, 04:31
Yes I'm well aware that all Hornets are F/A-18's, just wondered why he Canadians bother with their designation system. And officially they would be CF188's in Canada. I've also wondered why the RCAF seams to have more crashes than the RAAF. The jets are the same age and are used in the same manner, ie no carrier ops to increase the risk.

Solid Rust Twotter
12th Jan 2013, 06:53
Canadian weather is a little more robust than Oz.

Canada may have more of them and fly more than Oz as well, increasing the chances of an accident.

MattGray
12th Jan 2013, 11:29
Canada may have more of them and fly more than Oz as well, increasing the chances of an accident. Right on both counts SRT.

Canada had almost twice the number as the RAAF. They have also flown many thousands more combat hours everywhere from Gulf War 1 to the Balkans plus filled in for the USAF on domestic security when their F-15s were grounded. But no combat losses IIRC - mostly training accidents - some weather related.

But the entire fleet is now high time and the Harper government has seen the light and ditched the planned F-35 replacement. The sooner the Australian government does the same, ditches the overpriced lemon and starts afresh the better.

mike-wsm
12th Jan 2013, 16:40
So far as I can recall, I was working on F-18 in 1978 and on F/A-18 by 1984, so the Attack letter was added around 1980.

Coincidentally HUD became HUDS during the same era.

And I was required to say "data is" rather than "data are" by those who wrote the rules. They also wrote into equipment specs some rather suspect statistical formulae to make two-dimensional analog error calculations come out easier.