U.S. Navy farewells F/A-18C Hornet aircraft

Cold war, Korea, Vietnam, and Desert Storm - up to and including for example the A-10, F-15, Mirage 200, MiG-29, and F-18.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2115
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post16 Feb 2019, 19:22

linkomart wrote:

Question Sferrin, where is this picture (artists impression) taken from? haven't sen the strake on the radome before...

regards



YF-17 had the same strake.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post17 Feb 2019, 15:22

marsavian wrote:
Unfortunately, it ran into the penultimate energy fighter of its day - the F-16.


So what was the ultimate ? Typhoon ? F-16 may actually be a little better close to sea level. Flanker was pretty good at sea level too, check airshow best turns which f-16adf has a list of.


I've been told the F-16 with the GE big mouth was hard to beat, even today. The Typhoon though, would be my pick and in particular the uprated one I read about just recently. It's already ferociously powerful, turns on a dime and plenty of fast. I've heard "stock" Typhoons regularly beat F-15's and 16's in exercises so..

Flankers are mighty impressive, but draggy. They also carry a LOT of internal fuel, which impairs maneuverability until a good 40% of it is burned off. Their AAM's are heavier too, and with full internal fuel have to further drag it down (pun intended).

But we can't discount a lightly loaded F-35, can we? Remember LM's comment, "as good or better than any 4th generation fighter today", from a kinematic perspective. Certainly with a new, more powerful motor it will be. It's internal fuel load is staggering, 18,000lbs. If it carried an F-16 like internal fuel load (circa 7,000lbs), it would be awful sprightly. In a non stealth aircraft, that may seem desirable, but not in an F-35. I'll take that extra gas all day long, because it's going to allow me to stay longer, kill more bad guys and help 4th gen birds kill more bad guys too.

And let's not forget: The F-35 is the ONLY aircraft mentioned here that's going to be flying "clean". That alone is going to contribute to its positioning as the ultimate "high energy fighter" ...
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 09:03

johnwill wrote:
YF-17 had the same strake.


Thanks JW, hadn't seen that before, that I can remember. Anyone know if it's there for Alpha or Beta stability?

Best regards.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 14:00

mixelflick wrote: The Typhoon though, would be my pick and in particular the uprated one I read about just recently. It's already ferociously powerful, turns on a dime and plenty of fast.

What uprated one? AFAIK not a single operational Tiffy has been built with the AMK or high output EJ200s.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3362
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 2

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 15:04

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: The Typhoon though, would be my pick and in particular the uprated one I read about just recently. It's already ferociously powerful, turns on a dime and plenty of fast.

What uprated one? AFAIK not a single operational Tiffy has been built with the AMK or high output EJ200s.


"Eurofighter chief executive Volker Paltzo, speaking at the ILA air show in Berlin on 25 April, said that the consortium intends to increase the thrust of the Typhoon’s Eurojet EJ200 engine by “about 15%”, in order to boost payload and range. Each Typhoon is powered by a pair of the 13,500lb-thrust (60kN) engines."

A 15% increase in thrust is quite substantial, and should result in it being the most powerful energy fighter (excluding the F-22). Now yes, it still needs an AESA (although I thought Quatar was getting that too) and a few other modifications, but by all accounts Typhoons are terrific at recovering energy, sustaining G's and as tough in the vertical as they are the horizontal. When you hear of it beating F-15 and 16's with regularity, that really says something, doesn't it?

Other than the F-22, I can't think of a single other fighter that can make that claim...
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 15:23

mixelflick wrote:
consortium intends to increase the thrust

That is my point. They intend to. It has not been funded or ordered by anyone, unlike the AESA which has been funded and ordered. Until there is a program of record, even so much as stating "Beginning in year 202x RAF Typhoons or TR3 or later will be outfitted with the uprated EJ200 motors and AMK." No such statement has been issued that I am aware of. Likewise, PW intends to increase the thrust of the F135, but that means nothing until it is ordered and funded.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2115
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post18 Feb 2019, 18:10

linkomart wrote:
johnwill wrote:
YF-17 had the same strake.


Thanks JW, hadn't seen that before, that I can remember. Anyone know if it's there for Alpha or Beta stability?

Best regards.


During the Lightweight Fighter competition my good friend in Stability & Control (still a good friend) told me about the strakes. He said they were used to generate vortices at high AoA that improved the directional (Beta) stability by interacting with the vertical tails. It was obvious even then that the YF-17 had exceptional high AoA capability. Also part of that capability was the positioning of the vertical tails farther forward than usual. Although that reduced the yaw moment arm, it kept the tails in clear air at high AoA, at the cost of higher weight and drag for two tails.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2628
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 05:33

I thought this might be of particular interest here as well...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJBvKJht78
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 07:03

mixelflick wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote: The Typhoon though, would be my pick and in particular the uprated one I read about just recently. It's already ferociously powerful, turns on a dime and plenty of fast.

What uprated one? AFAIK not a single operational Tiffy has been built with the AMK or high output EJ200s.


"Eurofighter chief executive Volker Paltzo, speaking at the ILA air show in Berlin on 25 April, said that the consortium intends to increase the thrust of the Typhoon’s Eurojet EJ200 engine by “about 15%”, in order to boost payload and range. Each Typhoon is powered by a pair of the 13,500lb-thrust (60kN) engines."

A 15% increase in thrust is quite substantial, and should result in it being the most powerful energy fighter (excluding the F-22). Now yes, it still needs an AESA (although I thought Quatar was getting that too) and a few other modifications, but by all accounts Typhoons are terrific at recovering energy, sustaining G's and as tough in the vertical as they are the horizontal. When you hear of it beating F-15 and 16's with regularity, that really says something, doesn't it?

Other than the F-22, I can't think of a single other fighter that can make that claim...


Have they "actually" funded the upgraded EJ200's???
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 07:05

quicksilver wrote:I thought this might be of particular interest here as well...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4xJBvKJht78



I often post it for Canadian Critics of the F-35.... :wink:
Offline
User avatar

linkomart

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 31 May 2010, 07:30
  • Location: Sweden

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 08:00

johnwill wrote:
During the Lightweight Fighter competition my good friend in Stability & Control (still a good friend) told me about the strakes. He said they were used to generate vortices at high AoA that improved the directional (Beta) stability by interacting with the vertical tails. It was obvious even then that the YF-17 had exceptional high AoA capability. Also part of that capability was the positioning of the vertical tails farther forward than usual. Although that reduced the yaw moment arm, it kept the tails in clear air at high AoA, at the cost of higher weight and drag for two tails.


Thank you.
It was my guess, but since I'm a structures guy I wanted to ask.
Long time ago I met a guy who had worked at MDD with the F-18 early on. He were on the structure team and he told me he had worked with reinforcing the tails since the buffeting were causing overstress on the structure.
From what I understand, some of the extra (extra) weight on the tails came from the reinforcements needed since the tails is in the vortex from the LEX.

best regards
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 19:42

linkomart wrote:
johnwill wrote:
During the Lightweight Fighter competition my good friend in Stability & Control (still a good friend) told me about the strakes. He said they were used to generate vortices at high AoA that improved the directional (Beta) stability by interacting with the vertical tails. It was obvious even then that the YF-17 had exceptional high AoA capability. Also part of that capability was the positioning of the vertical tails farther forward than usual. Although that reduced the yaw moment arm, it kept the tails in clear air at high AoA, at the cost of higher weight and drag for two tails.


Thank you.
It was my guess, but since I'm a structures guy I wanted to ask.
Long time ago I met a guy who had worked at MDD with the F-18 early on. He were on the structure team and he told me he had worked with reinforcing the tails since the buffeting were causing overstress on the structure.
From what I understand, some of the extra (extra) weight on the tails came from the reinforcements needed since the tails is in the vortex from the LEX.

best regards



For a company without a history of building fighters, Northrop designed a great plane when they designed Boeing's F/A-18. :D
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4439
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 20:04

crosshairs wrote:For a company without a history of building fighters, Northrop designed a great plane when they designed Boeing's F/A-18. :D

The P-61, F-89, and F-5 would like to have a word with you. LOL.

On the YF-17...
"The F-5 was so successful that Northrop spent much of the 1970s and 1980s attempting to duplicate its success with similar lightweight designs. Their first attempt to improve the F-5 was the N-300, which featured much more powerful engines and moved the wing to a higher position to allow for increased ordnance that the higher power allowed. The N-300 was further developed into the P-530 with even larger engines, this time featuring a small amount of "bypass" (turbofan) to improve cooling and allow the engine bay to be lighter, as well as much more wing surface. The P-530 also included radar and other systems considered necessary on modern aircraft. When the Light Weight Fighter program was announced, the P-530 was stripped of much of its equipment to become the P-600, and eventually the YF-17 Cobra, which lost the competition to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Nevertheless, the YF-17 Cobra was modified with help from McDonnell Douglas to become the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in order to fill a similar lightweight design competition for the US Navy."
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

crosshairs

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 103
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2018, 19:03

Unread post19 Feb 2019, 20:12

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
crosshairs wrote:For a company without a history of building fighters, Northrop designed a great plane when they designed Boeing's F/A-18. :D

The P-61, F-89, and F-5 would like to have a word with you. LOL.

On the YF-17...
"The F-5 was so successful that Northrop spent much of the 1970s and 1980s attempting to duplicate its success with similar lightweight designs. Their first attempt to improve the F-5 was the N-300, which featured much more powerful engines and moved the wing to a higher position to allow for increased ordnance that the higher power allowed. The N-300 was further developed into the P-530 with even larger engines, this time featuring a small amount of "bypass" (turbofan) to improve cooling and allow the engine bay to be lighter, as well as much more wing surface. The P-530 also included radar and other systems considered necessary on modern aircraft. When the Light Weight Fighter program was announced, the P-530 was stripped of much of its equipment to become the P-600, and eventually the YF-17 Cobra, which lost the competition to the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon.

Nevertheless, the YF-17 Cobra was modified with help from McDonnell Douglas to become the McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet in order to fill a similar lightweight design competition for the US Navy."


F-89! Damn it. Forgot about that one. :bang:
Previous

Return to Military Aircraft of the Cold War

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests