And the stick is? The propeller, originally propellers on aircraft were wooden and so sometimes they were known as "sticks". If it stopped spinning, you had a dead stick.

Maybe you're not sure what deadstick means. Here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadstick_landing

He landed it one handed too! Had to hold up the potato to record all this, for insurance purposes.

yeah, that dude was a jackwagon

They are, but that has nothing to do with whether they can glide or not. The software that makes the minute corrections to keep the plane under control doesn't suddenly stop working just because the engine is out. If they lost all electrical power but the engine(s) were still running, then you would have no choice but to eject.

@@thekinginyellow1744 understood! Thank you!

Don't lump all fighters in one non-maneuverable basket. Sure, some of the stealth stuff is very unstable without computer controls. F-16 is not a radical design.

With the APU running, all flight control surfaces and instrumentation was up and running. Even as an unstable design, the computers would still be able to keep the platform stable. Stability is the only requirement for gliding. The F-16 has a glide ratio of around 6:1. Not great, but it'll get you either home or to a suitably harmless ditch point as long as you start out with enough altitude.

You're right in that it's confusing. What they're referring to as the 'stick', is the propeller blades. I know this is not a propeller engine, but that's where the term comes from, from the early days of aviation: dead engine = dead stick (propeller is not moving, or dead in other words). Control stick, flight stick, side stick (cause it's on the side in an F16, and not in the middle), hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) are terms that would be accepted as correct to varying degrees, depending on the aircraft and the setting among other things. So you're not wrong there either.

@@Deniz1923 Now I understand, thank you very much for your time and explaining so clearly. Much apprecaited !

in this scenario, that is exactly what you want to hear.

They said that to Capt. Haynes on Flight 232 (the one they crash landed with differential thrust only, 1/3 passenger fatalities.) I'll always remember how Haynes said "ahahaha, you wanna be particular and make it a *runway*, huh?"

The reply atc never wants to hear… “You want to be particular and make it a runway eh?” -the legend Al Haynes 😊

At least a runway is an option at that point. Scully didn’t have that.

it's the fuel for the EPU, which powers the flight control system. Without it, the pilot would have to eject

The 16 was made to be lighter and cheaper. That comes at a cost. Now they're doing the same thing with the 35, not to mention trying to make it a jack-of-all trades like the F4. Lesson not learned I guess.

Ejection under a controlled landing like this is nearly 100% survival rate. You might get some minor injuries but it's nearly a 0% chance of death. Landing the aircraft almost seems like an unnecessary risk to the pilot, but if he ever felt like he was in mortal danger, he would have ejected because in the end the pilot is always the one in command in the aircraft and it is his job to ensure he and his crew (i know the f-16 is 1 man but you know) make it home safe.

@@LouSaydus F-16 is not "1 Man", have you ever heard of D variant?

@Schmidtka Productions use the fucking Google

@@ephealtun You’re worthless.

There is always a risk in ejecting. Even allowing for surviving the ejection, the stresses it places on the pilots body possess a significant chance of permanent injuries that will sideline him from further flying. In short, if possible, it's always better to land the plane.

The stick is not really dead. The engine is. The term dead stick confuses non-pilots.