WT Forums

Select the Malaysian Airshow option
It is about 89 megs in length and it is Impressive!!

I hope everyone gets to see this.
Warthog30, Poke, A-10 stress, Big Thug, Mr. Mudd and anyone that was a pilot and/or worked directly with airframes I would especially love to hear what you have to say.
Boomer, I hope you are pleasantly surprised.

http://pma265.navair.navy.mil/stores/me ... video.html







Edited by - Tritonal on Jan 30 2003 5:09 PM

That Video had Hamfist written all over it!!!

I love the split S to a 1 rotation Flat spin, High AOA Buffet stall, a small Opposite Rudder Corection. Out of departure wing Walk in the Dive...Very Sexy .<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

The almost cobra like manuever in Level Flight (humpty Bump)H

I'm suprised that he had the G limit FLCS overide off.. Highest Caret G indicator was 5.5G (I guess they plan on returning it back to the fleet in 1 peice) The 7 G was the Max g in Normal FLCS by Weight Configuration (Clean) Im sure if it was dirty it would have read closer to 4G and Changes by Speed exponentially

Stall alarm and Overspeed Gear Check sounded a few times.<img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Was intrigued with the Auto Slat/Flaps....



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

That has to be the most sedate jet demo I've ever seen. Maybe it lost something due to the fact that it didn't have the noise from the engines rattling my eardrums.

Ted

Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly and for the same reason.
<img src="http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/dark2.gif" border=0>

Yes it was a mellow demo, But I think the demo was well put to demonstrate the Aircrafts Slow speed handleing and power that it needs in its carrier operations. Im a Fan of High Lift airfoils, and STOL performance. That demo was flown at speed ranges that would have droped 16's,15's. MudHens etc.
Remember that in naval Operations some equipment is too valuable to jettison due to Trap Weight and safe Recovery of the aircraft. The superbug is not required to jettison allot of gear that was previously required to be done with A-6's and F-18A/C's to return to the carrier.

Returning mission essential gear and Ordnance is a benifit to not diverting fighters to a landbase. That creates its own logistic and operational problems. The superbug is a winner in my book. And it is in service. Doing its job. While the Finicky picky generals are wageing the pentagon war trying to get a Stealthy Money whore to work...




"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>. The superbug is a winner in my book. And it is in service. Doing its job. While the Finicky picky generals are wageing the pentagon war trying to get a Stealthy Money whore to work...
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Coming from a pilot who has a prolific flying career in the military; that's all I need.<img src=icon_smile_approve.gif border=0 align=middle>





Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 01 2003 11:23 AM

Yeah, but he's a schizophrenic drunk too

Me and Mudd have had a few battles over the F-18E/F, highly entertaining, to say the least when we get started....

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Yeah, but he's a schizophrenic drunk too <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh, that's great!
We could be brothers<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Can't say i'm entirely surprised by that relavation bro

LOL, i still luv ya both though, even if you are both blinded by the droppings of the super bug.

It will be interesting to see how the F-18F performs against the F-35 in DACT's, no?

LOL......clubbing baby seals <img src=icon_smile_evil.gif border=0 align=middle>

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Feeling is the same; this site is fun and informative at the same time.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>It will be interesting to see how the F-18F performs against the F-35 in DACT's, no?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree.
I'd love to find some test footage of the F-35C!



Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 01 2003 5:17 PM

Really, in ALL honesty, the Super Bug don't mean too much because the USAF will be there to hold the Navy's hand and provide REAL air supremacy with the F-22.

If the US planners are right the Super Bug will spend the vast majority of it's flight hours moving mudd.

Should be fine for that.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

what is The cobra manuever? could you post a diagram, thanks

pope

Super Hornet vs. Raptor in a knife fight-would be at the least, interesting. That will be one of the few 4+ generation aircraft to hold its own with the new toys. Even glancing at that air demo made me think I was looking at a Flanker manuver. And also, the latest I heard is that the F-22 is on the chopping block.



<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If the US planners are right the Super Bug will spend the vast majority of it's flight hours moving mudd.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Yeah, I'm guessing also that that mission was at the heart of the design. Even I'm not moved by its ability to perform CAP and fleet defense, but then again that was not a priority and I'm not in the naval air community to know any better. I'm still guessing more powerful engines and SCRAM-jet missile technology for some added dash speed .

And Sniper! You're calling it "Super", not Stupor-I'm so proud of you<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>




Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 01 2003 11:58 PM

It was a slip-up, and not Freudian

I am sorry, but did you just say you thought the F-18E could give the F-22 a good fight in close?

The F-22 has 2D vectored thrust and an 11+G sustained turn rate.
Further with it's 70,000lbs of thrust, supercruise and stealth it can engage and disengage at will from a position of supreme advantadge against anything it can 'see'.

But to be truthful, the advent of AIM-9X may be the missile that finally does make dogfighting a thing of the past.

With AIM-9X(And Python IV and AA-11 Archer) it's the missile and pilot's head that does the turning, not the plane itself(so they say at least).
From all i am reading the 4th generation IIR seeker of the AIM-9X is all but impossible to decoy.

Supposedly AIM-9X is nearly a BVR ranged weapon itself, the DoD has tested the seeker out past 25 miles and they say it can acquire even cruise missile sized targets with ease at that range.

The AIM-9X is one hell of a missile, but a little slow. Seems to be a common theme with US missile systems.
The Russian equivelants are almost always significantly faster.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Feb 02 2003 06:33 AM

Edited by - m21 sniper on Feb 02 2003 06:33 AM

Oh, you just can't stand to see something nice about the Hornet, Admit it!!<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Say Sniper, do you know by any chance the thrust to weight ratio of the F-22?





Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 02 2003 10:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> Super Hornet vs. Raptor in a knife fight-would be at the least, interesting. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

tritenol, you KNOW how I feel about the SH, but the Raptor really is in a class of it's own. I think a dogfight between the 2 would only be interesting if the SH had guns only and the F/S-22(yeah I know) had NO weps at all and would have to nudge the Sh into an upset to win!! In my sims I've done some flying (yeah I know LOL) in the post stall regime with thrust vectoring, and it REALLY is "clubbing baby seals", in "guns only" my best score has been 16 dead F-16s in one fight with me only getting 15% damage I just stall it, and spin like a merry go round and watch the Vipers fall. Real pilots would do slash and burns against me, but what the heck!! LOL

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

At maximum internal combat load the Raptor has a power to weight ratio of 1.17:1(based on a gross weight of 60,000lbs)

Clean and light it is very close to 2:1.

BTW Boomer, the SU-37(The one the Russians are supposedly going to adopt) can do the same manuever.

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Boomer, from what I heard a symetrically loaded SH has no AoA limit.
I'm just wondering how you got partial tho the SH. I started to like it after I read related documents and heard accounts of ex-tom pilots praise the new plane. That download was the clincher for me.

I noticed that the SH is built in the Boeing, St. Louis plant. Do you have friends or relatives that work there? Was it that kicka%$ Janes flight sim? I'm just curious.

If anyone saw the download, I'm just wondering how the SH can do those manuvers without any thrust vectoring. Is it really, really Advanced Fly-by-wire?

Is the F-22 on the chopping block for FY-2003? I certainly hope not!!!

Aerodynamic forces Tritonal, simple as that.

The F-18 does have an AoA limit, every aircraft ever made designed to fly with lift generated by wings has an AoA limit- even TVC aircraft(with the sole exception being the Harrier).

An aircraft with no AoA limit would be able to fly 'backwards'.

Obviously, the F-18 cannot do that.

The SU-27 btw, has MUCH greater AoA capability than the E/F.

One of the things you lose when you go to high AoA's is roll authority, btw. Not a good thing.

And you REALLY need to see a SU-37 demo, to realize that the F-18 is NOT as manueverable as you think it is.
Watching the video it struck me that A- this plane is REALLY underpowered, and B- that it is NOT in the same manueverability league as an EF2000, Gripen, Rafale, F-16C/50+, F-22, F-35, SU-30+, and Mig-29. They will all run circles around the F-18E/F.

They all also outclimb, outdive, and out accelerate the F-18E/F.

An F-15ACTIV or F-14 CANARD will also fly rings around the E/F(and both have much more AoA capability to boot- with power to burn).

And the E/F is subsonic below 10,000 feet CLEAN, in case anyone forgot.

The ONLY thing the F-18 has ever excelled at has been AoA, and that is a trait that it has had since the F-18A.

But hey, if it float's your boat.......

Trample the wounded- hurdle the dead.

Edited by - m21 sniper on Feb 02 2003 6:32 PM

I heard that from a test pilot and read it in one document however, I can imagine that's really hard to phathom.
Here's where I got it from:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/d ... Hornet.htm
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>There will be no angle-of-attack restrictions for the symmetrically loaded E or F models. Spin characteristics are benign, with a simplified recovery compared with that of the C/D, and no sustained falling-leaf departure exists in any stores loading tested.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't think its underpowered, that's whats so deceptive about it; it takes a very advanced aircraft to achieve knife fighting slow manuvers. Saying that, I would really like to see the combined thrust jump to 55,000-60,000lb. area-perhaps a block II version. They already have the new avionics out for that block and they are impressive. It is also very strong, at China Lake they have survivability tests to evaluate the structural integrity of the air frames by firing all sorts of guns and AA missiles at them. The SH nickname is "Christine", taken after Stephen King movie about an indestructable car(from Air&Space Magazine). I'm not saying this plane can out do anything flying with it but its really impressive as a multi-role aircraft.
By the way, The Super Hornet has a 9:1 power ratio.

Is there any links to an S-37 demo. I have a SU-35 advertisement(yes, advertisement) but the video is abyssmal.

Do you mean the SU-37 Berkut, The poser X-29 on steroids? Is that their most sophisticated plane they're working on that will never reach IOC?<img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>An aircraft with no AoA limit would be able to fly 'backwards'. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Now that would be COOL; keep your fingers crossed.



Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 02 2003 8:26 PM

snipe,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>One of the things you lose when you go to high AoA's is roll authority, btw. Not a good thing. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not really, at high AoA your roll control switches from your ailerons to your rudders. Having 2 big rudders helps a lot at high AoA. A plane like the hornet (normal and super) has a lot of roll authority at high AoA. They have lots of maneuverability at slow high AoA regimes that many planes just fall out of the sky at. Their problem is the high speed sustained turn energy fights (the normal hornet is a 7.5 G aircraft that burns off airspeed even at that G - I am not sure about the superhornet).

Tritonal,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The Super Hornet has a 9:1 power ratio.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Huh? What do you mean by 'power ratio'? Surely you do not mean thrust to weight since that would give the SH something like 500,000 lbs of thrust...Do you mean specific power?

LMAO 500,000 lbs of Thrust, Thats like an ant strapped to a Ballistic Tip 22-250...

By the Way Brewski and Snipe, When you clowns get out here...Theres some Varmits we need to take care of.



"Your presence on WT is like an odor dude, you need to unleash.. -Brewski"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> An F-15ACTIV or F-14 CANARD will also fly rings around the E/F<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>Gee ya think LOL,


ALL the Hornets suffer from underpower and a G limit of I think 7.5. If the Hornets could pick up more power without a weight gain they would be able to sustain the high AOA (high AOA=HIGH drag) and kill about anything. The Hornet can already outturn (because of it's low speed AOA capabilities) an F-16 in a low slow fight( well IF a Viper driver were dumb enough to get into a fight like that LOL) so more power would be a HUGE increase to Hornets abilities!! But like Snipe was saying in a previous post, off borsite IIR missles will render all this maneuvering moot VERY soon!! Untill full power DIRCMs arive, then the missles will get SUPER high impulse motors with SUPER short flight times and high frag warheads to hit the target before the MWS/DIRCM can produce a solution. Shortly after that fighters will be equipped with DEW weapons in turrets (JSF)and we'll be back to BVR first shot first kill so we dont get within DEW range! Then the researchers will develope even MORE stealthy designs to prevent the BVR kills. Then the "fighters" will become flying lumberwagons(dreadnaughts!!) to see who can carry the most powerfull longest range DEW guns with Opticle/IIR/RF/Turbulence/Smell-O-Vision/Space based shadow seeking sensors!!! ROFL. I can see the Langly flight line now, row after row of active-camo skinned 777s LOL. But the airshows would be alot less interesting <img src=icon_smile_sad.gif border=0 align=middle>


I got partial to the SH because it was a bigger longer legged Hornet(which they were considering since the F/A-18As were coming off the line). I've always felt the Hornets were the most versatile frames on the planet (if you count carrier capability). The Eurofighter became another fave during my research (but the SH is stealthier than Eurofighter or Rafale perhaps even Gripen)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I noticed that the SH is built in the Boeing, St. Louis plant. Do you have friends or relatives that work there? Was it that kicka%$ Janes flight sim? I'm just curious.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We used to go camping on the weekends with one of the engineers on the original F-15 flight developement team <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle> The sim is Janes Fighters Anthology and I was flying the X-31(we can do almost anything in that old sim LOL).Most of the Hornet pilots I've heard talk about Janes F/A-18 sim say it sucks (other than Janes always staggering avionics details) and that it isnt very close to the real thing performance wise. Snipes right, everything that flies has an AOA limit, although when they finally take the vert stab off X-31 things might get VERY interesting( I've already seen the bloody thing fly backwards for a few seconds!!!) I havent seen the DL video you posted IT'S 90 RAGFRAGGIN MBs LOL too long for me on dial up!


"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

This is from a good read for anyone whose interested in real Flight Modeling vs flight sim Flight Modeling.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> And what about the flight model? I can honestly say now that no F/A-18 flight simulator has done a very good job so far. All of them underestimate what a real Hornet can do considerably. F/A-18s are pretty difficult to get into spin, and fairly easy to get out of one. They turn much sharper at low speeds than the simulators have been leading us to believe. When you get well under 300 knots, the Hornet can do the "Ditch" maneuver, which you just have to see to believe. One second you’re behind the F/A-18, and the next he is facing you. If any simulation modeled what a real Hornet can do, everyone would be crying, "arcade flight model" and shouting "there's no way a real F/A-18 can do that." And this is just a two-seat D model....apparently the Super Hornet makes even more impossible-looking moves and can stay in control at outrageous angles of attack.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/features/miramar/

I'm not sure what you guys mean about Thrust-Weight; perhaps you can enlighten me but here's my source.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Two General Electric F414-GE-400 engines power the Super Hornet. The F414 produces a combined 44,000 pounds of thrust. Its nine-to-one thrust-to-weight ratio is one of the highest of any modern fighter engine. Increased airflow to the engine is provided through the Super Hornet's distinctive caret inlets.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/mil ... _4back.htm

Bummer you can't see it Boomer, it's a treat for Hornet fans.





Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 02 2003 10:37 PM

I have had about enough of this bullshit. The SuperHornet is crap, but Naval Aviators have been strapping their sixes into inferior airframes since the USS Langley in the 1920's in comaparison to their USAF bretheran..........But the facts still remain, F6F Hellcat Pilots enjoyed the best exchange ratio of any allied type in W.W.I.I.

U.S. Navy F-4 Phantom and Crusader pilots had a better exchange ratio in Vietnam over the USAF, even though the F-4J lacked a cannon, and was hamstrung my McNamara's ROE's flying from Yankee Station........

The F-14A was the first US Navy aircrft to be on par with the USAF, even though it still had to make weight and size compromises due to the fact it was a CV VF and housed a radar weapons system with capabilities never seen before, not to mention a horrid stall margin, and low thrust of the PWTF-30P412...........The F-14D marks the first, and probably the last time Naval Aviators have a fighter worthy of their airmanship.........

I have a paper I just finished that I will be posting here shortly. Naval Aviators will strap their sixes into the F-18E/F and find a way to still kick ass.........Its just their pedigree.

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!





Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 02 2003 10:57 PM

Edited by - Tomcat Tweaker on Feb 03 2003 01:58 AM

Hey Mudd do those varmits have aurburn hair?

If you are not having fun, you are not doing it right!