The United States Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force were the only air forces that equipped themselves with F-111s. The F-111s in USAF service retired in 1998 while the F-111s in RAAF service retired on December of 2010.
PS: I won't even be reading any responses to this comment, as it's only going to be from fat-gut, budweiser-drinking losers who put more energy into watching cars go 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round than they put into properly fucking their wife.[ And reading this, they won't even "get" what the problem is with that *lol*.]
Yeah, makes total sense: entertainment through massive burn of carbon-based fuels, even as we go into the 21st century. But, hey: that's what Indy's all about.
Oh, yeah: and also about a bunch of do-nothing-for-the-world losers who somehow get a macho rush about themselves by watching such stupid shit.
I can't believe that Fighterjet at the back is on FIRE!
If I was a Fighterjet pilot and if the jet is on fire I think we should do an emergency land the nearest airport if I'm on land or a boatship if I'm on the water.
The fuel dump has a very meaningful purpose and the burn off has an environmental purpose, unless you think raw fuel hitting the ground is a good thing. So where do you base your statement? Operational use? Why do you think General Dynamics put the dump right between two huge exhaust tubes?? Are you trying to wrack up comment points? I suppose he was just calling you out on your uninformed comment and that makes him a weirdo...
Yes General Dynamics put the dump there but it wasn't designed to be lit up by the afterburners. I doubt the environment was an issue when the plane was being designed in the 60s. If it was, why wouldn't other planes perform dump and burns? Dumped fuel does not have to be set on fire, it simply exits the plane. I don't see flames coming out of civilian jets which regularly dump fuel.
Yes General Dynamics put the dump there but it wasn't designed to be lit up by the afterburners. I doubt the environment was an issue when the plane was being designed in the 60s. If it was, why wouldn't other planes perform dump and burns? Dumped fuel does not have to be set on fire, it simply exits the plane. I don't see flames coming out of civilian jets which regularly dump fuel.
Raw fuel would not hit the ground in a normal dump. It evaporates on the way down, and it only takes about 3 seconds for it to evaporate at high altitude.
God the F-111 is old, we retired that shit more than a decade ago.
princepersia1 4 months ago
@princepersia1 yeah we only did last year.
cyonics 4 months ago
The United States Air Force and the Royal Australian Air Force were the only air forces that equipped themselves with F-111s. The F-111s in USAF service retired in 1998 while the F-111s in RAAF service retired on December of 2010.
ExczSanityz 1 year ago
i was at 2009 river fire
samueljack69 2 years ago
PS: I won't even be reading any responses to this comment, as it's only going to be from fat-gut, budweiser-drinking losers who put more energy into watching cars go 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round than they put into properly fucking their wife.[ And reading this, they won't even "get" what the problem is with that *lol*.]
DrHMFIC 2 years ago
Yeah, makes total sense: entertainment through massive burn of carbon-based fuels, even as we go into the 21st century. But, hey: that's what Indy's all about.
Oh, yeah: and also about a bunch of do-nothing-for-the-world losers who somehow get a macho rush about themselves by watching such stupid shit.
DrHMFIC 2 years ago
its not an accident dick lips its called DUMP AND BURN YOU UNEDUCATED PENISES
blAck5Et 3 years ago 2
my mistake..
djwatson10 3 years ago
They are an awesome machine. I can't believe that they are retiring them in a year or two. :(
I can't wait till tomorrow nights dump and burn in Brisbane City.
If I get some footage Ill post it up.
Cheers
James
tattoos01 3 years ago
Hate to be paying the fuel bill. Wait, I am! Do'h!
bradbbs 3 years ago
Excellent manoeuvre it can be used to make Heat-Seeking missiles further away from its ass :P
Xukinugo 3 years ago
Looks like a B-1 bomber
ShotgunFreak 3 years ago
omg it wasn't a accident ive seen it before in perth at airshows the do it at airshows its not crashing or anythin lyk that
alkamos 4 years ago
are you guys saying this is indianapolis, and that was from the motor speedway?
i live about 45 min. from there, in hendricks county.
halofreak200715645 4 years ago
sorry it was in australia
at indy car racing
cyonics 4 years ago
i thought so, i didn't look like indy.
halofreak200715645 4 years ago
they do this every year year and i love it every time. Don't stop now. shatter windows blow stuff up looks great!!!!!!
JSJ752 4 years ago
they had to change the flight path for the dump and burn at indy, 2005 they shatterd windows in some of the appartments. *woops*
xBJZx 4 years ago
In Canada are airforces allowed to be on fire at the back?
AlexRampaul 4 years ago
I can't believe that Fighterjet at the back is on FIRE!
If I was a Fighterjet pilot and if the jet is on fire I think we should do an emergency land the nearest airport if I'm on land or a boatship if I'm on the water.
AlexRampaul 4 years ago
it is only dumping fuel and it is being ignited by the heat of the engine;)
YBBN747 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dump and burn was discovered by accident. It has no operational use.
Vpmatt 4 years ago
you were an accident.
you have no operational use.
YBBN747 4 years ago 13
What?
I was just adding to your comment. Geez you really see what kind of weirdos are in the world when you use You Tube.
Vpmatt 4 years ago
The fuel dump has a very meaningful purpose and the burn off has an environmental purpose, unless you think raw fuel hitting the ground is a good thing. So where do you base your statement? Operational use? Why do you think General Dynamics put the dump right between two huge exhaust tubes?? Are you trying to wrack up comment points? I suppose he was just calling you out on your uninformed comment and that makes him a weirdo...
CorvetteTom2007 4 years ago 3
No, I called him a weirdo for taking my innocuous comment and turning it into a personal attack on me for no apparent reason.
Vpmatt 4 years ago
Yes General Dynamics put the dump there but it wasn't designed to be lit up by the afterburners. I doubt the environment was an issue when the plane was being designed in the 60s. If it was, why wouldn't other planes perform dump and burns? Dumped fuel does not have to be set on fire, it simply exits the plane. I don't see flames coming out of civilian jets which regularly dump fuel.
Vpmatt 4 years ago
ur right, it was an accident. if i find were i found that out i will share the link.
brooksimusmaximus 3 years ago
its not an accident, did you pass school? or watch other videos on youtube.. god its called a fukin dump n burn..
djwatson10 3 years ago
what i meant was that when they designed/built the plane, they didnt build it to make htis happen. they found out that this can happen by accident
brooksimusmaximus 3 years ago
Yes General Dynamics put the dump there but it wasn't designed to be lit up by the afterburners. I doubt the environment was an issue when the plane was being designed in the 60s. If it was, why wouldn't other planes perform dump and burns? Dumped fuel does not have to be set on fire, it simply exits the plane. I don't see flames coming out of civilian jets which regularly dump fuel.
Vpmatt 4 years ago
Raw fuel would not hit the ground in a normal dump. It evaporates on the way down, and it only takes about 3 seconds for it to evaporate at high altitude.
bman2101 4 years ago 4
That was almost certainly a joke - don't take it personally! :)
tutelarius 4 years ago
Its dump and burn lol its not on fire, its the fuel being dumped behind and the jets igniting it.
Xukinugo 3 years ago
I tot it has been banned or going to ban? bt i love it man!
loilk 4 years ago
I thought the air force banned that maneuver? Looks dangerous, but cool.
dguy812 4 years ago
This is in Australia so i guess their air force allows it.
whiterice138 4 years ago
I thought so too because some brush fires were started like that. Especially at low level.
crispycritterz 4 years ago
What a load of crap. You couldn't start a fire with a dump and burn. Unless they crashed and burned. Sheesh.
Hoobee26 4 years ago
Ah, the "zippo"... very impressive.
Roboprop 5 years ago 2
What year was this video? 2003?
KPWB123 5 years ago
2006
cyonics 5 years ago
wooohoo ! the fast bird is on fire
lombaya 5 years ago