SchorschBoeing press release:
http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2008/q2/080409b_nr.html
This is becoming a catastrophe.
SchorschTheir are some reports even suggesting that boeing might cancel the -3 varient for the time being to be better positioned to deliver the -9 varient in the future . This remains to be seen .
The cancellation of the -3 was in the room before.
It looks like a useful idea to free delivery slots and resources.
A bit like the A380F, which cancellation did not hurt the program as it freed delivery slots and resources.
SchorschAerodynamically the F-14 has to be one of the best. With a typical fuel/TOW ratio of under 0.25 it still had pretty good range and even more so endurance. The TF30 were primadonnas when it came to airflow quality, but they were quite efficient in the typical slow cruise of the F-14.
I agree that given the quite miserable fuel fraction with typical piece time load-out (assume 4x AIM-7 and 2xAIM-9) and the fact that it rarely used external tanks.
Still, I am a bit cautious in all these range claims for the F-14. With wings swept forward and M0.7 at 35000ft the F-14 surely had a very good endurance, but with payload (incl. AIM-54) flying at M0.85 I would be very interested in the particular numbers.
Typical mission profiles often say “flight at 30000ft at optimum Mach number”, which in case of swing wingers often means slower Mach but much better aerodynamics. The increased thrust of the F110 actually can be negative in this instance: SFC is lowest for 90% thrust output, so lower speeds sometimes result in higher SFC (which has a negative range impact).
Perhaps we should resurect the F-8. It is still lighter than anything based on the F-14, or F-18A, consumes less carrier space, less fuel, and is more flexible. Its faster too. But really, to get the range capability of the F-14D with the F-18E/F, you would have to fill up the deck with tankers, and there goes the small size and fuel advantages.
The F-18A basically was the attempt to get a new F-8. It failed partly. On the other hand the Navy got hands on a much better multi role aircraft than was existent at that time (F-14, A-7 both sucked as A/A and A/G multi role).
The range thing again: who has dependable statements concerning the F-14’s range? I never saw anyone making real statements with reference to a typical mission profile.
SchorschThat’s annoying. Why can’t they hold it in the morning? 3 pm Seattle time is 11 pm here.
Actually, I was wrong. It is supposed to be today (9.4.2008), and in late evening European time.
Schorsch>> A bubble payload fairing on top, not as a load-carrying structure, only as a shell so that your stuff doesn’t get wet, kind of. Akin to Beluga.
And not pressurized – that saves a lot of weight.
Could even be built like a tent, or maybe as a pneumatic structure. When going only 300kts that could be possibe.
That’s a nice idea. Given that economic efficiency is not really of concern it might be realized on a smaller airframe. Disadvantage is the need to have low wing config. There was a kind of utopistic artist impression in a book for an open-deck air transport … years ago …
Found it!
[ATTACH]161613[/ATTACH]
SchorschBoeing is about to give a press conference this afternoon about 3ish Pacific Time.
The Seattle Post Intelligencer writes that another 6 month delay is likely to be announced. Boeing will also give more about the delivery schedule.
SchorschThanks BIO for your opinion.
I consider the wing box problem as a serious problem but not unfixable. They found it early enough. For the few aircraft out there a fix will do the job. The question is if static strength or fatigue strength is threatening the box. Anyways, it is just a thing that can happen during an aircraft program.
For testing: I think there is little evidence that B787 testing will be more troublesome than for other aircraft. The biggest issue will be to have enough aircraft out and keep them running. Boeing will do a lot to identify problems as soon as possible, especially structural issues and system issues. On the other hand, the must open the flight envelope and fix problems in handling qualities first.
I guess LN001 will be tasked with loads flight testing primarily.
The problem with the B787 (a bit different as it was for the A380) is that Airbus had an aircraft out flying, though it was only one for a couple of month. That enabled engineers to assess and address the problems. Most must-dos were identified in the early days of A380 testing, enabling re-fitting to the rest of the aircraft. But A380 was rather low rate, all important contributors within two flight hours of Toulouse.
—————–
For the industry the B787 situation means about 100 aircraft in average less during 2009/10/11 until Boeing catches up with its delivery plan. Maybe this coincides with a drop in passenger numbers and therefore does not hurt too much. If the industry goes into a real bust cycle, Boeing might face the threat of serious cancellations of airlines being wary of their cash situation. Some of the B787 customers are not 100% healthy.
Boeing must invest 100% to get the more important B787-9 into the air on time, and finally invest money to get the OEW from its current quite remarkable 6% overweight. If they are lucky they can loose half of that, more realistic is one fourth to one third.
SchorschHow does the F-18E/F have more flexibility and capability if the F-14 program had continued to be modernized? The Tom had twice the payload to range capacity meaning that it covered four times the threat area of the Rhino. Without buddy packs there is no way to get the Rhino out to the same ranges. And once out to the same range you need to fuel up both on the ingress and egress. This is disregarding the idea of carrying the same load. Due to the total number of sorties for refuelling then fuel savings are not there. I think you tried to keep the comparisons too simple.
Make a simple calculation:
Take F-14D OEW.
Substract that from its stated MTOW.
Substract from the remaining value the internal fuel.
Do the same with the F-18E and give us the results.
The F-14D is restricted by its carrier MTOW.
In real life expect a maximum warload of 4000lbs with basic self defence missiles and external fuel.
You’ll find all values at Wikipedia.
BTW: What do you expect from a modernization? The usual “less weight due to advanced materials”? That – as we see everywhere – does never happen as any weight saving is eaten up by weight increase. The engines are hardly outdated and you wouldn’t gain in aerodynamics,especially not in trans/subsonic.
Schorsch1.5 to 2 tonnes heavy compared to an F-15A.
f15a 12 tons , f-14 18 tons ……empty are 6 tons dif. thats a lot, but still i dont think the f-15 would have meet the requirements for the navy w/o making huge compromises
F-15A is more like 13t and I would put it at 13.5t empty and equipped. The F-14 is at 19t OEW. 4xAIM-7 and 4xAIM-9 come at 1.5t including pylons.
2x AIM-54, 4xAIM-7 and 2xAIM-9 come at over 2t with pylons.
Note that the rather unusual load of 4xAIM-54 and 2x AIM-7 & -9 is over 2.5t with pylons.
The main weapon of the F-14 in most situations would have been the Sparrow, just consider the limited stocks of a carrier of AIM-54.
SchorschEven counting in the swing-wing with all its flaps, the heavy landing gear, the additional structural weight for carrier operations, the heavy radar, the second cockpit the F-14A still comes out 1.5 to 2 tonnes heavy compared to an F-15A.
But then the F-15A was an incredible light aircraft – lighter than a Super Hornet, lighter than a Eurofighter, also lighter than a Phantom.
Compared to a Tornado an F-14A didn’t even look bad, weightwise.
Hmm, on the other hand the F-15 just showed that it can break apart …
No, you are right about the extremely heavy Tornado. But consider its structural considerations: max speed at low level. An F-14 can do that, too, but repeated low level training like a Tornado does would bring an F-14 into the desert in 10 years.
I guess the F-14 started big and ended big. The question if the weapons systems was a bit oversized may be allowed.
But one has to credit that the designers did fight lots of uncertainties and technological challenges. Bringing a 19t OEW airframe of a carrier deck, that with the first operational large bypass supersonic engines and the first truly multi-target independent air-2-air missile system, and that without encountering problems like some other aircraft did, is still a remarkable engineering and management achievement. If Navy had said: “Make a bit smaller”, I guess Grumman engineers would have had no problems.
SchorschA bit fuzzy at the moment.
By beginning of March the statement was that first flight would be in “second quarter”, so latest in June 08. Now, in the meantime new rumors about delays surfaced and the first flight might be delayed even further. But there is no official Boeing statement yet and I guess we will have to wait until the Boeing management feels they can deliver something more believable after they misguessed their technical problems five times before.
The Power On wasn’t achieved yet, and from Power On about two month are needed for first flight preparation. As we now have 6th April, we can see that the June window gets increasingly tight.
Next question if Boeing pushes for first flight at all costs or if does rather focus on an achievement of a proper flight test program. A well prepared flight test will result in less surprises.
SchorschWhen the tide turned against the F-14 in 1973, the Navy had to fall back on the FADF mission to save the Tomcat as it was the only aircraft that could fulfil the role at a reasonable price and capability.
Although I always liked the idea of an F-4L (Phantom with AIM-54), one has to confess that the solution is even less attractive than the Tomcat finally became. With a weapons load of close to 2 tons (2xAIM-54, 4xAIM-7, 2xAIM-9, Gun), 19t OEW is somehow acceptable, actually comparable to the F-15’s relation.
SchorschEspecially that in case of the V-22 you pay for unneeded capability.
Generally, an E-2 may be a useful successor of an E-2. Update system and engines and you pretty much have a useful aircraft. There is not much to gain by technology, at best a few kg less weight and a few drag counts less. USN shares my opinion and procures E-2D.
The next best thing would be an updated turbo-prop using two more powerful engines and going into the Mach/CAS class of an A400M (.72/300), making it able to refuel fighter aircraft. That would require to develop a new wing.
I would actually not like the idea of a UAV. An aircraft that serves as airborne command post and sometimes just as eyes on the sea should have humans in the loop. I also don’t see the big cost advantage.
By the way: having two different fuselages wouldn’t make it too tricky, especially when we stay with simplified designs. It wouldn’t be useful for tanker though as such an aircraft is always weight an not volume limited.
The problem is inability of current USN/USAF in defining a clear need and fill it with a useful but simple system in time and budget. No matter what they ask for, the finally end up buying overpriced super systems full of unneeded capability. Like the V-22 or a supersonic air-to-air refueling aircraft.
SchorschIn my opinion the larger single aircraft that performs 1.5 missions of a similar role smaller aircraft is worth the extra cost if it can be contained within a 30% surcharge.
The question is why the Tomcat is 1.5 times the size of an F-18E/F and still has less flexibility and capability. Just the simple assessment of total payload carried away by a single unit (MTOW – OEW) leaves the F-18E with a huge advantage, even if we factor in a 10% or so increased drag.
The fact is the USN covers 70% of the world’s surface yet gets smaller proportional funds for its air forces than the USAF.
Maybe because the current president served in the USAF, unlike his father and his possible successor.
SchorschWas part of the decision to replace the Tomcat with the Super Hornet also to do with cost to maintain? I seem to recall that the Hornet promised significantly reduced maintenance costs – and I would imagine that the USN decided that the F/A-18E/F would sufficient for the enemies that they expected to face while saving them a bundle.
I.e. if the USN ever has to face China/Russia/India they are S.O.L, but against the likes of Iran/Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia all they would need was a reduced air-combat ability and the ability to truck enough bombs/PGM to handle low-intensity wars?
Which reminds me – has the Super Hornet delivered on the promise of greatly reduced maintenance costs?
This is one of the best threads for a long while – lots of facts, little emotion- I, for one, am lapping it up 😀
The question if the proposed Super Tomcat could be a better aircraft is an academic one for dreamers. It never was at a stage that came even close to a proposal, it was a simple attempt by Grumman to prolong an outlived design. Although the F-18E/F is heavy, it is still lighter than anything based on the F-14, consumes less carrier space, less fuel, is more flexible. It probably lacks the top speed and sexiness, but that’s about it.
The F-18E/F brings more capability by having more sorties available per day. If the F-18 needs 20 man hours maintenance and the F-14 needs 40 man hours, you have 100% more sorties per day assuming that maintenance limits your sortie rate (which in a high sortie environment can happen easily).
Additionally, a 20t OEW F-14 needs more fuel and more ramp space, requiring more weight in the carrier for spares and fuel for similar sorties. We had discussions about bring back capability and stuff, all claims are based on few articles and statements and nobody ever gave me a really useful assessment of the F-14s range/payload capability under comparable conditions (besides that the F-14 is pretty TOW limited).
Overall, the replacement of the F-14 was overdue. Maybe somebody informed can give infos about remaining flight hours of the F14A airframes.
The question is why the F-14A, which started so extremely ambitious, finally developed into this near nightmare. We have found out that the engines were generally considered as interim solution but a replacement was stopped due to cost overruns.
It is remarkable that the defense of the US carriers was based on an aircraft that was considered an interim solution by its makers. On the other hand, given the headache with the more modern F100 engines, it is questionable if the proposed F401 turbofan would have solved all problems.
Sign In
