why f16 does not have a fuel dump switch

well, i discover that the falcon does not have any fuel dump system to reduce landing weight in emergency, differently from ad example the f18......any reason for that?:joystick::joystick:

You'll have to ask General Dynamics.

You'll have to ask General Dynamics.

i will try :megalol::megalol:

Simply put, because it's ground based. If an aircraft can land safely with full tanks in case of an emergency just after takeoff, then fuel dumping is not necessary.

When landing on a carrier the aircraft have very strict weight limits. They can usually take off with much higher weight than they can land back on the deck.

I think it has a fuel vent, but no dump.

Yep, under the left wing, between station 3 and 4.

The absence of fuel dumping functions is actually pretty common for ground based fighter jets AFAIK.

Since the weight limit is 48000lbs for taxi, takeoff, inflight and landing, there's no need to reduce the weight before a re-landing.

Landing roll at 48000lbs is less than 7000ft at ISA conditions and SL and matches exactly the brake energy limit for a short field landing.

Sure it does. Burner and boards.

With e.g. an unsafe gear indication during retraction, I don't know if burner and boards are a good idea ;)

With e.g. an unsafe gear indication during retraction, I don't know if burner and boards are a good idea ;)

So you've got three green after running the checklist and need to burn down fuel? Why not?

Unsafe and three green? How?

Unsafe and three green? How?

Unsafe during retraction can usually be corrected by cycling the gear or alt gear extension.

The question was, why you can't dump fuel in an emergency, not how to rectify the problem.

Let's assume that extending the gear with the alt gear extension works, but you are now experiencing severe airframe vibrations at low speed.

Still going to dump fuel with burner and boards?

The question was, why you can't dump fuel in an emergency, not how to rectify the problem.

 

Let's assume that extending the gear with the alt gear extension works, but you are now experiencing severe airframe vibrations at low speed.

 

Still going to dump fuel with burner and boards?

Pretty sure that your wingman would warn you if anything's amiss, plus there's always the option to either punch off the stores and thus drop weight, or to punch out if the problem develops into uncontrollability.

Either way, once the stores are off there really shouldn't be a need to dump fuel before landing.

The question was, why you can't dump fuel in an emergency, not how to rectify the problem.

 

Let's assume that extending the gear with the alt gear extension works, but you are now experiencing severe airframe vibrations at low speed.

 

Still going to dump fuel with burner and boards?

Severe airframe vibrations? That's a new one on me (sounds very T-38ish though). Man, this jet must've been a hangar queen. :lol:

If I have to reduce gross weight prior to landing, there is nothing wrong with using burner and boards. Just keep the airspeed below 300 KCAS with the gear (any of them) down.

The question was, why you can't dump fuel in an emergency, not how to rectify the problem.

 

Let's assume that extending the gear with the alt gear extension works, but you are now experiencing severe airframe vibrations at low speed.

 

Still going to dump fuel with burner and boards?

Hey Man, if Mover is the person I believe who he is. Than you can trust his words, because he has flown the F-16

1. Severe airframe vibrations? That's a new one on me...

 

2. If I have to reduce gross weight prior to landing, there is nothing wrong with using burner and boards. Just keep the airspeed below 300 KCAS with the gear (any of them) down.

1. That's the problem with emergencies. They tend to surprise pilots with something that's new to them ;)

2. Thanx for the info :)

Even aircraft WITH fuel dump have to use alternate methods of reducing weight when "adjusting Gross weight" isn't allowed.

Flew a mission in the KC-135R one morning that was supposed to go WAAAAAAY up north over Canada and refuel a B-52. About an hour before AR, the BUFF cancelled...leaving us ohhhhhhh about 50 THOUSAND pounds over our max landing weight when we got home. Since it wasn't an emergency...we couldn't just dump the gas. We ended up descending to 10,000 feet and flying home gear down and flaps 30 just to keep the fuel burn up where it needed to be so we'd be able to land when we got back to great falls. Sometime those CFM-56 engines were a curse.

Even aircraft WITH fuel dump have to use alternate methods of reducing weight when "adjusting Gross weight" isn't allowed.

 

Flew a mission in the KC-135R one morning that was supposed to go WAAAAAAY up north over Canada and refuel a B-52. About an hour before AR, the BUFF cancelled...leaving us ohhhhhhh about 50 THOUSAND pounds over our max landing weight when we got home. Since it wasn't an emergency...we couldn't just dump the gas. We ended up descending to 10,000 feet and flying home gear down and flaps 30 just to keep the fuel burn up where it needed to be so we'd be able to land when we got back to great falls. Sometime those CFM-56 engines were a curse.

Oh that is hilarious... :megalol:

An RDAF F-16 had a gearretraction failure on takeoff some time ago, cant rememebr when.

RDAF considered a emergency landing foaming the runway, but they rejected it as too dangerous and risky for the pilot.

He was then ordered out over the North Sea, while they considered every scenario, even calling the manufacturers "customer service" while he was burning off fuel out there.

They could not give any useable advice, so they ran the bird os low on fuel as possible, then he ejected.

I believe the RDAF published an interview with the pilot on Youtube.

So somewhere, out there, on the oceanfloor, is a sad and lonely RDAF F-16...

RIP

o7

They forgot silly ;)

An RDAF F-16 had a gearretraction failure on takeoff some time ago, cant rememebr when.

RDAF considered a emergency landing foaming the runway, but they rejected it as too dangerous and risky for the pilot.

 

He was then ordered out over the North Sea, while they considered every scenario, even calling the manufacturers "customer service" while he was burning off fuel out there.

 

They could not give any useable advice, so they ran the bird os low on fuel as possible, then he ejected.

 

I believe the RDAF published an interview with the pilot on Youtube.

 

So somewhere, out there, on the oceanfloor, is a sad and lonely RDAF F-16...

RIP

o7

I posted that video in the video section :)

I posted that video in the video section :)

Thank you :thumbup:

Never understood how that RDAF-mishap actually happened. I mean, from what I could see from the imagery, it looked like the entire drag-brace had broken off the bulkhead it was connected to.

Even for old jets like the ones that the RDAF and RNoAF has, that really shouldn't be something that happens, let alone go unnoticed through preflight and/or maint'.