Captain Chesley Sullenberger's Phantoms

[Troffa]

Just watched the Clint Eastwood directed "Sully" on BBC here in the UK and am feeling inspired- I have an F-4D on the production line and was wondering if anyone has any tail numbers for Phantoms flown by this consummate airman during his USAF career.

 

I have found one photo of him with an F-4D  F-4C presumably at Luke AFB (Actually more likely at Nellis with the 428th TFS sometime around 1978) which has a nose wheel door number of 455, but he was also at Lakenheath on the 493 TFS, which would be my preference. 

 

Any pointers?

 

Cheers,

 

Troffa

[72modeler]

Wish I could help, but what a wonderful tribute model it will be! Hope somebody has the information you need.

Mike

[iainpeden]

Great film which I also watched last night. I think the ones in the film were the heritage painted drones from Tyndall.

[Troffa]

Here is the only picture I can find on the 'net of Captain(?) LT Sullenberger in front of an F-4C (C or D) with the Nose Door number of 455.

 

Sully's Phantom

 

I've had a trawl through my Phantom references, and I think that this aircraft can only be the Block 17 aircraft, F-4C  63-7455 (C/N 429), so I have a start. No other F-4C or D fits with the 455 serial.

 

No pics of this particular airframe are to be found with the exception of this one, taken late in it's service life, with the Arkansas ANG:

 

Razorback Toom

 

So any further images of 63-7455 would be appreciated, and now I'm off to trawl the Lakenheath archives 🙂 

 

[Creepy Pete]

Silly thought, perhaps, but have you considered just asking him? He's still alive and very active on social media. He might still have his logs from his Lakenheath days.

 

Worth a try, I'd say.

 

Here's a photo of 455 at Luke by Bill Spidle:

Edited August 30, 2020 by Creepy Pete
soggy crickets

[Whofan]

I watched the film last night and thought it an excellent film.

 

Two questions, though;

 

What was the biplane they showed young Chesley flying?

 

When the A320 landed on the Hudson, the wings stayed on the plane. Why didn't the engines tear the wings off, at least at the attachment points to the wings?

 

Are the engines designed to break off on a wheels up impact so as to protect the wings?

 

Oops - that was 3 questions!

Edited August 30, 2020 by Whofan

[SafetyDad]

53 minutes ago, Whofan said:

When the A320 landed on the Hudson, the wings stayed on the plane. Why didn't the engines tear the wings off, at least at the attachment points to the wings?

 

Are the engines designed to break off on a wheels up impact so as to protect the wings?

 

I seem to recall that the A320 has some design features allowing it to be ditched, I'm sure I've read that there was a 'pre-emergency landing' checklist that Sully and the co-pilot only got part-way through before landing the plane on the Hudson, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances, and there is absolutely no intention on my part here to detract from his truly heroic decision-making and flying skills. The checklist included elements related to a water landing as I recall, but I'm very happy to be corrected by those more in the know than I.

 

SD

[stever219]

3 hours ago, Whofan said:

I watched the film last night and thought it an excellent film.

 

Two questions, though;

 

What was the biplane they showed young Chesley flying?

 

When the A320 landed on the Hudson, the wings stayed on the plane. Why didn't the engines tear the wings off, at least at the attachment points to the wings?

 

Are the engines designed to break off on a wheels up impact so as to protect the wings?

 

Oops - that was 3 questions!

The wings stayed on because Captain Sullenberger flew an approach and landing that would minimise (the inevitable) damage to the airframe whilst maximising the chances of survival for all of those aboard.  He and First Officer Skiles did a masterful job without ever having practiced it in a simulator.

 

The engines are designed to come off under abnormal or excessive loads  to protect the remainder of the aeroplane from greater loads.  IIRC the left engine did detach at some point during the landing and was recovered separately.

Edited August 30, 2020 by stever219

[Whofan]

21 minutes ago, stever219 said:

The engines are designed to come off under abnormal or excessive loads  to protect the remainder of the aeroplane from greater loads.  IIRC the left engine did detach at some point during the landing and was recovered separately.

@stever219,

 

thanks for that. The left engine being recovered was mentioned in the film, I assumed it was recovered from the body of the plane.

 

which begs another question, did they ever recover the plane?

[Whofan]

1 hour ago, SafetyDad said:

I seem to recall that the A320 has some design features allowing it to be ditched, I'm sure I've read that there was a 'pre-emergency landing' checklist that Sully and the co-pilot only got part-way through before landing the plane on the Hudson, which is hardly surprising in the circumstances, and there is absolutely no intention on my part here to detract from his truly heroic decision-making and flying skills. The checklist included elements related to a water landing as I recall, but I'm very happy to be corrected by those more in the know than I.

 

SD

@SafetyDad,

 

I don’t think anyone would see your comments as detracting from his abilities as a pilot. I certainly don’t.

 

I wonder how many people would actually be able to react in such a circumstance as Coolly, effectively and decisively in similar circumstances?

 

I picked up in the film that the 2nd Officer said they had 208 seconds.

 

I’m guessing that was from first sight of the birds to impact on the water.

 

To do what they did - control a plane not designed to glide into a glide landing on water which did not break the plane up without loss of life is truly extraordinary.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Whofan

[Richard E]

6 hours ago, iainpeden said:

Great film which I also watched last night. I think the ones in the film were the heritage painted drones from Tyndall.

 

The example shown rolling out on landing was a QF-4E 74-1638 (serial AF-349) operated by the 82nd Aerial Target Squadron. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Whofan said:

What was the biplane they showed young Chesley flying?

It was a Stearman 6L Cloudboy

 

 

Answers courtesy of the The Internet Movie Plane Database

[Creepy Pete]

37 minutes ago, Whofan said:

which begs another question, did they ever recover the plane?

Yes, they did. Not a good idea to leave an airliner in the middle of the Hudson. They put it on display at the Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte, NC.

Edited August 30, 2020 by Creepy Pete
jolly frogs

[Whofan]

6 minutes ago, Creepy Pete said:

Yes, they did. Not a good idea to leave an airliner in the middle of the Hudson. They put it on display at the Carolinas Aviation Museum in Charlotte, NC.

 

I didn't know how deep the Hudson is, as you say, probably not a good idea to leave it there! Of course it would have had a full fuel load, as well. 

 

If I ever get to Charlotte NC I'd definitely be goig to that museum. Thanks!

 

[Whofan]

17 minutes ago, Richard E said:

2 hours ago, Whofan said:

What was the biplane they showed young Chesley flying?

It was a Stearman 6L Cloudboy

 

Many thanks. 

[Troffa]

3 hours ago, Creepy Pete said:

Silly thought, perhaps, but have you considered just asking him? He's still alive and very active on social media. He might still have his logs from his Lakenheath days.

 

 

I was thinking about asking him- I've put a comment on his FB page under the pic of the Phantom, now I wait. 🙂 

[Ham]

Interesting subject.  If you look at his flying experience in the F-4, he only flew the C model while in the replacement training unit at Luke AFB.  His operational assignments to the 493rd TFS at Lakenheath and 428th TFS at Nellis were in the F-4D.  Lakenheath switched out its F-4D Phantoms for F-111F aircraft as part of operation "Ready Switch" in 1977.  The 474th TFW (including the 428th TFS) gave up it's F-111A's, which went to Mountain Home and got F-4D aircraft and crews from Lakenheath.  

As far as I can tell he flew the F-4D at Nellis until about 1980, when he left the Air Force to join US Airways.

It appears to me that the photo of him taken in front of the Phantom numbered "455" was taken at Luke AFB.  Note he is a First Lieutenant (single silver bar) and has a Tactical Air Command (TAC) badge on his flight suit.  If the Photo had been taken when he was at Lakenheath he would have had a United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) badge on the front of his flight suit.  He would have made captain in 1977 I think.  He was a 1973 graduate of the Air Force Academy.

 

Edited August 30, 2020 by Ham

[Troffa]

Thanks for that Ham, much appreciated!  That narrows things down a bit, and it  looks like the Luke AFB  Aircraft pictured above in Creepy Pete's post is the one I'll be doing 🙂  And great catch on the TAC/USAFE Badge, I'd never have got there!

[SafetyDad]

Sully's tweets ten years on - worth a read. I defy you not to get goosebumps reading his account!

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/01/15/i-had-seconds-to-come-up-with-a-plan-sully-recounts-flight-that-changed-his-life/

 

SD

[Welkin]

Testament to the good design and construction of the A.320 as well?

[Coors54]

All Airbus's have a Ditch Switch on the air conditioning panel, this closes off all valves controlling outflow of air (and hence ingress of water) which helps maintain the hull integrity.

Obviously worked in this case as aircraft remained afloat for a long time after ditching.

Amazing airmanship and Sully is definitely a man with the Right Stuff.

 

Dave

[SafetyDad]

15 hours ago, Coors54 said:

All Airbus's have a Ditch Switch on the air conditioning panel, this closes off all valves controlling outflow of air (and hence ingress of water) which helps maintain the hull integrity.

Obviously worked in this case as aircraft remained afloat for a long time after ditching.

 

That's what I had read!

Apparently activating this switch was the final item on the checklist.

 

Thanks Dave

SD

[stever219]

4 hours ago, SafetyDad said:

That's what I had read!

Apparently activating this switch was the final item on the checklist.

 

Thanks Dave

SD

Having recently read through some of the NTSB accident report the crew of Cactus 1549 picked the most appropriate checklist from the QRH (dual engine failure, fuel remaining).  This assumed engine failure above 20,000 feet and an ability to achieve 300 knots IAS in order to achieve a windmilling relight of at least one engine, neither of which applied in this case.  The checklist ran to three pages, of which the crew only had enough time in the air to complete one.  This checklist also omitted two steps included in another unusual situations checklist which would have led the crew to cancel two of the aural warnings, including the GPWS, which would then have de-inhibited the "low speed" warning which would have been of far more impertinence.

N106US hit the water with a rate of descent around 12 fps, compared to the roughly 3 fps assumed by Airbus in their ditching calculations; these had assumed that engine power would be available to allow the aeroplane to be flared and settle in ground effect.

[Murph]

On 8/30/2020 at 9:35 AM, stever219 said:

He and First Officer Skiles did a masterful job without ever having practiced it in a simulator.

When I flew the 747 there were ditching procedures in the flight manual, but the chances of surviving such an event were considered so low that we never bothered practicing them in the simulator during training.   The one caveat is that the procedures in the manual assumed a ditching in the open ocean, where large waves were a significant factor.

 

Regards,

Murph

[CT7567]

5 hours ago, Murph said:

When I flew the 747 there were ditching procedures in the flight manual, but the chances of surviving such an event were considered so low that we never bothered practicing them in the simulator during training.   The one caveat is that the procedures in the manual assumed a ditching in the open ocean, where large waves were a significant factor.

 

Regards,

Murph

Aw, @Murph, now you've gone and ruined the "realism" of Airport '77 for me!  😆  Guess I'll have to fall back on the Vulcan in Thunderball as my favorite fictional water landing.

[Ben Brown]

On 8/30/2020 at 10:48 AM, Whofan said:

 

I didn't know how deep the Hudson is, as you say, probably not a good idea to leave it there! Of course it would have had a full fuel load, as well. 

 

If I ever get to Charlotte NC I'd definitely be goig to that museum. Thanks!

 

Sadly, the museum is now closed. They lost their lease on the buildings a couple of years ago. The last I heard, they were working with the airport and/or the city to build a new facility.

The airplane is in surprisingly good shape. I understand most of the damage to the fuselage was caused when they pulled the jet out of the river.
 

Ben