Thanks for all the useful first hand info you have been supplying INO.
The F-22 has eject-able pylons and I’m pretty sure the Rhino has them too. I will leave the arguing to you guys, but the SH is in service NOW and well over a 100 not 2,3, or 30. It’s was designed to do a specific job and it does it. The comment about the Soviet-ized Hornet is too funny when you look at the Mig 35’s new features (Hornet like…sorry couldn’t resist :dev2: ).
Different design approaches to different logistic needs. I like them all.
Technically a sweep of less than 20° is insignificant in terms of less transonic/supersonic drag. The F-104 had technically spoken an unswept wing. But it combined it with a very low profile and small wing area. The arrangement of the F-18 proved to be less than optimal for transonic performance, but is of advantage for low speed handling and performance.
So you are in agreement with DJCross that the F/A-18 has a straight wing? This was all that I was attempt to address.
F-18L was one of the sales contenders in the early 1980s. As I recall, the empty weight was reduced substantially by eliminating the wing fold, launch bar and holdback bar, use of a single nose wheel, and reducing weight by use of thinner gage skins, bulkheads and keels. The weight reduction put it in parity with F-16 thrust-to-weight. But the goofy, high-drag straight wing would still kill speed and range as it does today on the E/F.
Technically the F/A-18 doesn’t have a straight wing. The A-37 is a jet with an almost straight wing. The sweep on the F/A-18 leading edge is about the same as the F-104. The F-35C also has sweep that matches what is seen on the F/A-18. This works well for low speed handling, it did back then and it still does today.
When McDonnell Douglas and Northrop joined forces to produce the F/A-18 for the US Navy, it was agreed that McD would get the carrier based sales and Northrop would get the land-based sells. McD went after all sells and Northrop sued over it. No real F-18Ls were ever produced, it was a paper jet for the most part.
Hunter and Prey
No offense meant…..
Just having fun showing my art work. 😀
I don’t recall the Super Hornet being a temporary replacement (stop-gap) for the F-35. It was a fill in for the NATF and A-12 program but never the F-35.
Now with that said, Boeing has offered the SH in case of any delays of cut backs to the F-35 program.
Anyone here playing Battlefield2?? If we use that game to settle the scores
between the different fighters JSF, J-10, F-18, the J-10 would be superior:D
Hehehe….
You are joking I’m sure.
Battlefield has a very poor flight models…period. 🙂
Two seater XL? 🙂
F-35XL….ewwwww 😀
I do like mock-up version of Boeing’s JSF better. Also, the X-32 looks better with the “lipstick” on. 😀
Sorry I simply couldn’t resist….shame on me
AFAIK the outer mold line will not change.
I also agree. Other than a few more or less exterior humps and bumps this is probably it for the ‘A’ model.
Is that blue tire smoke coming off the right main wheel? I wonder if the extra high speed taxi test yesterday was to test the fix for that?
Smoke?
More importantly, do I see the hook down or is it an illusion 🙂
Congrat to the JSF team!
It is cute but I don’t see what advantages can be gained in any military purpose. But I’m all ears…..lets hear how you would use it if you had to equip it for military use.
To go back a wee bit further, I think the WW1 Fokkers had all moving along with the Wright brothers 😀