Talk:Cornfield Bomber

"Cornfield Bomber"

Okay, this is the first time that this "Six" guy has ever heard of this particular aircraft being referred to as the "Cornfield Bomber" - doesn't sound right anyway as the aircraft generally never was used as a bomber (although some enterprising prankster did manage to hang some bombs on a bird during the TDY to Korea back in the sixties as a gag). Indeed, the referenced Air Force Magazine article makes no reference to that name (you'd think if it were in common parlance that they'd latch onto it add that zip to their story). So, what is the source of this name? Where's the documented reference? To avoid the appearance of original research in this "encyclopedia," perhaps this needs to be removed - don't know what you'd call this article then, but at least it wouldn't sound like someone wiki-ite just pulling stuff out of thin air (not that that ever happens ;') — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.12 (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

At least one ref already cited in the article calls it just that. - Ahunt (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Eject altitude

In the article it says he ejected at 15,000 feet cited to a F-106 web site. But a video of an interview with the pilot he says he ejected at 8,000 feet. 14:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Oct 18, 2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2XZEYqIpQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRWolf (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it normal operational practice to eject at 8 or 15 thousand feet, leaving the aircraft free to fly on and cause harm elsewhere? Shouldn't pilots be required to remain onboard as long as possible, so as to minimize the risk on harm on the ground?Royalcourtier (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point that made the incident remarkable: at the time the pilot ejected, the aircraft was in a flat spin that had proven unrecoverable. 99.9% of aircraft in that situation auger right in. This one, when the pilot ejected, had the center of gravity change (the weight of the pilot and seat having been removed) just so that the trim, also set just so, allowed the aircraft to recover itself. The suggestion of "requiring" pilots to remain onboard would first, in this case have been irrelevant (in an unrecoverable flat spin, you punch out, period), and would result in lots of dead pilots. (Many pilots choose to remain onboard as long as possible, in less dire circumstances, to steer clear of populated areas - and many who do it wind up dead heroes.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Most military aircraft have a safety measure in place in the form of a small explosive located in the fuselage which, after a pilot ejects, detonates and destroys the aircraft. Primarily, this is done to prevent capture of the aircraft in enemy territory, though the side effect of that being that it also prevents the plane from striking any civilians on the ground. However, the caveat to this is that the demolition charge is disabled during state side flights, to prevent the aircraft from accidentally exploding (which could happen) due to a systems failure. Kitsunedawn (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

None of the ejection seat-equipped military aircraft I have flown had a demolition charge. Do you have a reference that says this is the case with the F-106? - Ahunt (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornfield Bomber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110106092409/http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_PilotlessLanding_580787.htm to http://www.f-106deltadart.com/71fis_PilotlessLanding_580787.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornfield Bomber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022213855/http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/video/index.asp?cid=127&sid=36618 to http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/video/index.asp?cid=127&sid=36618

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Centre of gravity

The Wikipedia page on spin states that prone aircraft have their centre of gravity (CoG) too far aft and that "If the center of gravity of the airplane is behind the aft limit approved for spinning, any spin may prove to be unrecoverable except by using some special spin-recovery device such as a spin-recovery parachute specially installed in the tail of the airplane; or by jettisoning specially installed ballast at the tail of the airplane." In the case of the Cornfield Bomber, the loss of the pilot and the canopy would have pushed the CoG even further aft, so the explanation of recovery is at odds with the page on spin. Could, perhaps, the two be reconciled by someone? JBel (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Each aircraft has its own aerodynamic vs C of G characteristics. In the case of the F-106 it is possible that the aft shift of the C of G was overcome by other factors, such as the aerodynamic changes caused by jettisoning the canopy, but without a ref to spell this out we can't be sure. - Ahunt (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Ahunt. From this article: "The reduction in weight and change in center of gravity caused by the removal of the pilot, coupled with the blast force of his seat rocketing out of the plane pushing the nose of the aircraft down, which had been trimmed by Faust for takeoff and idle throttle, caused the aircraft to recover from the spin."

There are two sources cited in the passage. I would also point out that the CoG passage the OP posted states "any spin may prove to be unrecoverable" (emphasis mine). So I don't see a conflict between the two articles. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems sensible and consistent to me. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

So just who was this guy?

Sources mentioned in this page appear to disagree on the name and rank of the pilot. Both "Captain Gary Faust" and "1st Lieutenant Gary Foust" are in the references (Historic Wings and Air Force Magazine, respectively). What's his true name and (at the time of the incident) rank? -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

This looks definitive, being put out by the US Air Force Museum and including an interview with the pilot himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M2XZEYqIpQ

Note that Maj.(Ret.) Gary Foust's rank at the time of the incident is not mentioned. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)