kilcoo316Lol, your sticking up for a dictatorship, nice, carry on.:rolleyes:
Yeap, just you keep that head firmly buried in the sand 😉
Oh, and while yer about, what separates a dictator from a leader that manipulates information to allow them to force their own decision through anyway?
kilcoo316First of all, I expect answers related to the topic and not throwing darts on one’s educational background. If I am a good engineer, I don’t have to dismiss the knowledge of others to show how good I am in comparison, only losers need to do that.
Don’t worry about him questioning my background.
Whats that saying about an empty pitcher making the most noise. 😀
kilcoo316What experience or first hand knowledge do you have witht the Rhino. Because YOU dont approve of a wing design that you have no clue about, you start making assumptions about the overall performance of the aircraft?
The laws of physics and aerodynamics are the same no matter where I am from, or what direct experience I have with the hornet series.
I don’t approve of the design for sound aerodynamic reasons, you cannot do everything you want when designing a plane, you have to make compromises – and the hornets represent alot of the wrong compromises for me.
They had to make a (very) moderately swept wing for landing speeds, then there is the direct contradiction between subsonic (thick aerofoil with blunt leading edge and a decent amount of camber ahead of the 1/4 chrd pt) and trans/supersonics – thin leading edge with much less LE camber.
The S-H has had to go with the thicker aerofoil to meet the landing speeds, but its sacrificed transonic/supersonic performance in order to do so.
The Rhino is one of the easiest and most forgiving aircraft to fly in BFM.
So what – all modern design aircraft have carefree handling.
The Aim 120, JHMCS and 9X make BFM unfair for everyone else.
None of which are a result of the Hornet’s airframe.
The wing allows for eye watering AOA and controlled flight at slow speeds and still allow for excellent nose authority.
Which means your energy state is ****, have the USAF/USN changed doctrine from energy maneuverability?
Not that you need this much anymore with the JHMCS and 9X
Again, not a result of the hornet’s airframe.
but its nice to have as a back up in the flats using the gun. It can also reach speed greater than M1.6 clean (been there, done that, got the T-Shirt).
OK, I’ll admit my info on absolute speeds is wrong – I’m not going to dispute that with someone who flies the thing.
Whats your speeds like with ordnance, particularly with the two inboard pylons in use?
Also, accelerations, how are they, again, with inboard pylons in use?
The F-18E/F can carry one hell of an A/G load out (11 MK 83’s or a mix of JDAM, JSOW, GP, LMAV, LGB’s, ATFLIR with a 120 and 2 9X’s) into combat with more gas than a baby hornet or Viper.
Can it go farther than the competition (bearing in mind the competition is not the Hornet or the F-16).
The Rhino is probably the best A/G aircraft on the market right now.
Due to? Sensors?
I’m trying to separate the electronics from the aerodynamic platform – my gripe is not with the radar/avionics etc on board the S-H, its the shell they are carried in that is my problem.
*I assume the F-14Ds were providing precision guidance for legacy hornets over afghanistan? :confused:
Our overall sensor fusion is the best around. The APG-79 is awe inspiring and combined with the ATFLIR and our loadout for A/G missions makes the Rhino unbeatable in that arena.
All of which is 100% independent of the wing.
Back at the boat I can fly a slower approach speed with a higher bring back than a baby hornet.
I can fly a single engine approach safely at the boat at night in bad weather or on a nice sunny day.
(Try that any single engine brethern).
True
True
That is a reason why I disagree with the JSF – its alot of money for a single engined machine – any kinda engine damage in conflict (or even peacetime) and your losing the airframe.
And after all this, there are still people that will call the Rhino a terrible aircraft.
Yeap. Unless the whole doctrine of energy maneuverability in combat has been chucked out the door, the S-H is gonna be pretty crap.
So Kilcoo, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
That is fair enough.
But, do you not worry that you might go into unfriendly skies with the knowledge that the aircraft strapped to your back could have been better? Who knows (hopefully you’ll not have to find out of course), it might make the difference some day…
kilcoo316So your not interested in freedom or liberty then?:rolleyes:
That depends on whose definition of “freedom” and “liberty” your talking about.
Absolute freedom and liberty – not a problem (in a perfect world).
The definition of “freedom” and “liberty” as used by certain countries for propaganda purposes – damn right I have a problem.
When opening a country up to absolute freedom, you do leave it open to manipulation by foreign powers for their own ends. Thus, it has to be balanced against the overall benefit it would be to the populace.
Do you give them all the freedom for a few to make the wrong choices and ruin the country for everyone?
kilcoo316Lol, you think merely the existence of a parliament is a sign of a healthy democracy, your funny.:D Heavy handed approach understandable? what next?
No – its not a sign in itself.
But to me, the primary responsibilities of a government are being met – education healthcare and security.
kilcoo316I have no idea about your educational background, different than me you are not giving any clue in your profile. Considering your comments here it can’t be aeronautical engineering.
Oooohhh – the arrogance. 😀
Su-33: You tend to overweight aircraft, I hope your choice with women is better. 😉
You trying to say the Super Hornet is a better airframe?
The Rafale can hardly achieve the performance goals for approach speed set by the USN. If these make sense, I think they are a bit too low.
Then the onus is on the USN to lift the approach speeds and train their pilots to deal with it.
The F-18 has outstanding high AOA stability and needs less artificial augmentation than the F-16.
Yes, yes outstanding stability…
After those band aid fixes have been applied 😀
kilcoo316I suggest you go and research what happens to Fidels political opponents and stop trolling about the US. I notice you have nothing to say about North Korea.:rolleyes: 😀
No, nothing to say about North Korea – why should I have? :confused:
Considering the various attempts at foreign interference in Cuban affairs over the years, having a heavy handed approach is somewhat understandable, if regrettable.
Its also worth pointing out that since a parliament does exist in cuba, you’d wonder how a ‘pro-democracy’ group would exist.:confused:
kilcoo316Yeap – alot of accusations, somewhat short on proof…
I see free education, healthcare and religious affiliation. I see women holding 35% of the parliament seats… :confused:
(Incidentally, under a Cuban funded healthcare scheme active throughout South America, Cuban doctors saved the sight of the Bolivian that shot Che Guevara there last week IIRC)
Meanwhile, the country that is behind the various UN resolutions has openly and consistently carried out human rights abuses at Guantanamo bay… maybe that is what you mean by Cuba?
kilcoo316The cold war was about the Soviet Union, it is over.
I suggest that you go and google those countries human rights records.:rolleyes:
Cuba? :confused:
kilcoo316He is saying that he would choose the F-18 over the F-16 for combat, and that even more so with the Super Hornet. I mean, all that talking about flight performance, isn’t combat performance the final goal and everything else just indicators which help us to figure it out?
I disagree, he is saying the S-H has better cockpit ergonomics etc, but I suppose you could argue that since he has chosen the hornet over the F-16 due to that, he will pick the S-H over the F-16 for the same.
Notice no comment on the airframe?
For an upcoming engineer you show surprisingly little appreciation for your colleagues’ work. Criticizing something is OK, but to call something crappy, one must come up with better solutions that fit into the frame.
Upcoming?
The engineers did the best job they could within the brief given them – the YF-17 was all right as a LWF for the USAF. It was not all right as a naval aircraft, yet they couldn’t do a bespoke design. It still doesn’t change the bottom line – its a crap airframe.
As for better solutions, the Rafale and Su-33 both are better than the S-H.
kilcoo316Fun fact: the pilot you have quoted to find the F-18 extremely slow to accelerate has rated the Super Hornet as his aircraft of choice.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200306/ai_n9262073/pg_6
Doesn’t that somehow compromise your statements?
Further on, with some basic engineering education, I would refrain from calling something a terrible aircraft. The people that worked on it have a trillion times more experience in that field. If they call their design terrible, I would buy it.
C’mon – read that in context.
“The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet’s cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays. The only jet that I’ve flown that is better is the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet.”
He is saying the cockpit & avionics in the S-H are better than anything he has ever flown.
kilcoo316The SuperHornet excels any other aircraft design in provoking discussions absolutely free of knowledge or insight in fighter aircraft performance, either requirements or actually tested. It leads to people writing posts with contents like “crappy wing” or “terrible aircraft”, which just don’t suite these people well. It always implies that pure idiocity was at work when the aircraft was designed.
It has a crappy wing, and is a terrible aircraft. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring all evidence to support that is not going to change reality.
The constraints forced upon the engineers were unmanageable, there were too many mutually exclusive goals, and the result is a severe compromise of transonic and above performance.
Personally, if I had been doing the hornet, I would have had a look at a Viggen like layout – if you have to rotate at low speed – get every damn surface producing lift! But, the YF-17 was produced to meet a USAF requirement, the USN should have asked for a redesign from the get-go.
kilcoo316Thanks, good reading.
But doesn’t this …
… contradict earlier statements made in this thread that the F-18E/F has a more flexible wing?
The twist will maintain aileron control at high AoA approaching stall (you’ve low wing loading and little aeroflex).
But the twist will not stop aero-elasticity at higher loadings (it will help prevent divergence however, so the reduction in twist on the S-H does suggest an improvement of sorts on the spanwise torisional rigidity of the wing).
Erm, could you point out where it was said the E/F has a more flexible wing than the A->D please.
kilcoo316Did Iraq require a supersonic, swing-wing, low-level but still not stealthy half-a-billion bomber?
NopeDid Afghanistan require a supersonic, swing-wing, low-level but still not stealthy half-a-billion bomber?
Nope.Did Kosovo require a supersonic, swing-wing, low-level but still not stealthy half-a-billion bomber?
Nope.Did Iraq1 require a supersonic, swing-wing, low-level but still not stealthy half-a-billion bomber?
Nope.
So what.
The bombs needed dropped.
Having the capability to drop the bombs in a higher threat environment is a good thing.
If they are gonna go with a high-low mix of heavy bombers, the Tu-160 is pretty viable IMO.
kilcoo316Its all been done with the F-35B. The PW F135 is a higher bypass version of the F119, which also drives a lift fan.
No, it really hasn’t.
When they talk of the F135 being “high” BPR – they mean higher than the F-22 (which is about 0.2 BPR IIRC) – but in the grand scheme of things, still pathetically low (for this application).
To contrast, I’m talking a BPR of 10+ to be most effective. [to be honest, the open blade will always be aerodynamically more effective for lifting – there isn’t much the ducted fan can do to beat it]
Sign In
