This is what happens when a Narcos plane meets some armed F-16 fighter jets

Oct 14 2013 - 13 Comments

According to Vladimir López Padrino, commander of the Ceofanb, the Comando Estratégico Operational de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana (Venezuelan Air Force Strategic Operations Command), who gave the new using his twitter account, on the evening of Saturday Oct. 12 some F-16s belonging to the Aviación Militar Bolivariana Venezolana (Bolivarian National Air Force of Venezuela) shot down two Narcos planes south of Apure, not far from the border with Colombia.

Venezuelan_Air_Force_General_Dynamics_F-16A_Fighting_Falcon_(401)_Lofting

Image credit: Wiki

Padrino released an image of the remains of one of the intruder aircraft: a sort of admonishment for all those who might believe that flying above the Amazon rainforest at low altitude could be enough to escape interception.

Top image credit: via @vladimirpadrino. H/T to Emiliano Guerra for pointing the news over.

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • OG_Locc

    I like that F-16 picture. It brings back some memories. As a kid I remember building a Revell F-16 model and using the same camouflage scheme as the F-4 Phantom model. Never seen one painted that way in real life, until today, a few decades later!

    Wish I still had a fraction of that same passion for aviation.

  • StanSki

    At least it’s NOT a CIA King Air, right?

  • RS

    Strange photo, for a plane that was shot down by an F16.
    Why the engines are still tie to the fuselage?
    That plane looks like it has been
    burned while I was parked in the ground. Also, the propellers
    usually broken or bent because when they are turning during the fall, Why the remains also are
    all together? Other lei from a government of
    liars, pimps and drug dealers

    • Anthony J. Mitchell

      “Strange photo, for a plane that was shot down by an F16.” No it is not.

      “Why the engines are still tie to the fuselage?” Because they are not attached to fuselage, they are attached to the wings which are attached the fuselage at the wing root. The plane could have easily been crippled by the F-16 attack, landed, severely damaged, and then exploded on the ground which would totally explain the lack of rotating damage to the propellers. Or the propellers could have simply stopped in flight from engine damage or cut off fuel resulting in no prop strike damage from impacting the ground. And you seem to be ignoring or oblivious to the fact the propellers are clearly feathered lending to the possibility the engines were disabled in flight.

      “That plane looks like it has been
      burned while I was parked in the ground. Also, the propellers
      usually broken or bent because when they are turning during the fall, Why the remains also are all together?” Usually? How many shot down aircraft have you seen? Nothing usual about them. Some crash still intact, some crash intact then explode, some explode creating a debris field on the ground after being shot down. “Other lei from a government of liars, pimps and drug dealers” Your lack of understanding, of what happened to this plane despite the description is a failure on you, not the reported details.

      • http://wading-in.net/walkabout Al Denelsbeck

        “No it it not.”

        Sorry, yes, it actually is. There’s not one bit of evidence that fits with typical crash sites, especially of a light aircraft shot down by a combat jet. Raising the possibility that this or that might have happened is what conspiracy theorists do; the probability of it happening in such a manner is extremely low, which is what RS and Scott Burland have observed. There is plenty of reason to be suspicious.

        For instance, damage from an F-16 that would have forced a plane down is likely to come from heat-seeking missiles or a cannon. Missiles would probably have removed an engine nacelle in its entirety, but even if not, that would present no reason to feather both props. Cannon fire would have had to strike key components of the fuel system to disable both engines and force a landing, again rather low on the probability curve.

        The plane obviously burned in place, upright, as evinced by the position of the turbines and tail section. This means it did not break up in any way, again quite unlikely considering a deadstick landing in an unprepared field, and the fire remained localized, so fuel scatter was nonexistent – not even the tail burned. You are welcome to go off on wild speculation as to how the plainly visible tree ended up behind the wing as well. The tail elevator is level so the likelihood of a high angle-of-attack stall with near-vertical impact is low.

        None of these rule out a very atypical crash or emergency landing, but they all provide excellent reasons to be suspicious. You can question my credentials all you like, but the points and the probabilities are what remain to be disputed.

  • Scott Barland

    Funny how the KingAir in the photo has its props feathered and no rotating damage to the blades. And the whole airframe is burned out in one spot, right side up, like it wasn’t even moving at all when it burned. Hmmmm.

    • Anthony J. Mitchell

      The plane could have easily been crippled by the F-16 attack, landed, severely damaged, and then exploded on the ground which would totally explain the lack of rotating damage to the propellers. Or the propellers could have simply stopped in flight from engine damage or cut off fuel resulting in no prop strike damage from impacting the ground. And you seem to be ignoring or oblivious to the fact the propellers are clearly feathered lending to the possibility the engines were disabled in flight.

  • Matteo Emilio Corsi

    I agree, this photo stinks, there’s no way the plane can be downed, it was on the ground, still, when it burned. Communist country = blunt lie, as usual

  • http://twitter.com/WinstonCN WinstonCN

    small air wars continue…

  • Patrick

    Maybe the drug dealers landed it attempting to flee, and then it was strafed or bombed by the F-16. I agree that it is unlikely it was shot down. While Anthony’s assertion isn’t entirely impossible, I doubt drug smuggler King Air pilots would have the skill to successfully land a plane that’s been damaged by 20mm or air-to-air missiles. I find it even more unlikely that a King Air would be able to withstand any type of damage from the types of weapons employed by an F-16 and still be controllable to land by a pilot of any skill.

  • Patrick

    Hmmm…according to “El Universal”, the exact language used by the air chief was that the plane was “immobilized”, not shot down. This leads me to believe that perhaps the plane was forced to land and then destroyed rather than shot down. Perhaps so that the Air Force would not be seen as executing the crew of the King Air?

  • Patrick

    I mean, you’d hate for something like this to happen again:

  • Vultur

    Are not the propeller blades of the Super King Air

    broken or bent by the impact?????