The main difference is the number, placement and shape of the external antennas and/or sensors.
FS-36320 Dark Ghost Gray
FS-36375 Light Ghost Gray
Since the F-35 looks like the F-22 Raptor I know of a few people calling it the F-35 Mini Me 😀
Cool.
Do you have any more?
Let me think … what happens to the “normal” Hornets already… Isn’t it something like Central Barrel replacement ? 😀
How about you post the rest of it? 🙂 I got this at http://www.persnet.navy.mil
“The F/A-18 Center Barrel Replacement program got its start following a Hornet shipboard mishap in 1987. A Lot 8, A-model, with approximately 160 total flight hours on the aircraft, suffered a hardlanding which resulted in significant structural damage to the fuselage. At the time, the cost of a new F/A-18 aircraft was approximately $26M. Commercial industry repair options resulted in an estimate ofapproximately $16M over an expected three-year repair effort period. The engineering and production team at NADEP NI thought that they could do the repair better, faster,cheaper and was given the go ahead to design, engineer, and manufacture the tooling and procedures necessary to execute the repair. Beginning in 1989, the NAVAIR NorthIsland team designed the fixture andprocedures to remove and replace the F/A-18 center barrel section, the structural core of the aircraft. Non-recurring design and engineering costs totaled approximately $4M, while the material and labor cost an additional $2M. The entire project was complete in 18 months and the aircraft was subsequently delivered back to the fleet. The Navy had a new and unique repair capability for the F/A-18 Hornet aircraft. To date nine Hornets have been brought back to life in the center barrel fixtureincluding FMS work for the Royal Australian Air Force. Four additional aircraft arecurrently waiting their turn in the fixture for the repair opportunity that will allow them to fly once again. In addition to returning otherwise strike damaged aircraft to service, the center barrel repair capability has created the opportunity for increased F/A-18 Service Life Management via the Center BarrelReplacement Plus or CBR+ Program.CBR+ addresses fatigue life issues necessary to keep F/A-18C/D models flying incontinued operation until 2020. Currentplans call for the CBR+ modification of up to 355 F/A-18C/D aircraft at a cost ofapproximately $2M each with an elevenmonth scheduled turn-around-time. The CBR+ modification program is scheduled to run from 2002-2012. Throughput will build up to approximately 45 aircraft per year at multiple fixtures/sites. The total number of aircraft to be reworked under this program is subject to change due to factors such as Service Life Assessment Program (SLAP)results; attrition; actual FLE based on flight hour and cat/trap count accrual rates; and buy rates of the F/A-18E/F and JSF aircraft.The initial CBR+ modification prototype is complete, the aircraft has completed flight test, and will be returned to fleet service in late May 2002.
The CBR+ modification validation/verification aircraft is currently in process in the fixture with induction of the first production CBR+ modification aircraft scheduled for July 2002.The CBR+ modification is necessary because up to 80% of fleet F/A-18 aircraft are limited to 78% of their original planned service life due to failures on the certifying fatigue test article. Additionally, increased operational commitments have significantly increased the flight hour and cat/trap count for the Hornet resulting in accelerated fatigue life usage rates.”
I read this as the aircraft works as they are flying the heck out of it. The cost of the repair seems cheap to me….considering the alternative :D.
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=32463
That was last September.
And Flight said then, those fences would be added to all Super Hornets.
We will just have to wait and see. But I doubt they will be added.
The Super Hornet doesn’t have any fences. NASA, while working on the wingdrop problem, placed fences on a windtunnel model. That is far as it got.
V= Fixed winged aircraft….now
I haven’t seen that Boeing concept drawing. Do have any more!?
BTW, good post
Please, show a little bit more respect so we can distinguish civilized US citizens from pathetic Yankee rednecks…
Back to jokes…
I think this was just as uncalled for…..I hope you never become a moderator!
Yep, the engines were the same as the YF-22s.
The Airforce asked for one thing and the YF-23 was it. They then opted for something else. The F-22 is a great machine and will do fine.
At least when those Flanker pilots were not ordinary Russian AF ones. 😮
German AF pilots in MiG-29s had no problem to outmanouvre F-16s at first, before those learned the lessons and choose adequate tactics. 🙂
Every “defeat” brings you nearer to victory, when every “win” often do the opposite. A:A is a fluid business. 😉
Very nicely put!
The YF-17 was also draggy compared to its rival, the YF-16.
I believe Distiller is correct on the sawtooth and the strake slots. The EMD or prototype F/A-18A didn’t have the desired or advertised range which could only have been corrected by the following (I may have missed some):
1. more effiecent engines
2. carry more internal fuel
3. reduce airframe drag
They focused on the airframe. All the slots in the LEX, except for one on each side, were filled. This was done to decrease drag. So the airframe is still considered draggy today. I think that the reason is because it didn’t have the range it was suppose to have. Also I would also think that the overall shape generates a lot of parasite drag.
The Super Hornet with the pylons installed is really draggy but without them I would think it is a fairly clean jet for its size.
Thanks for posting it……funny stuff.
Here is a video capture of the opening ceremonies at the SuperBowl. It has a very quick pan of the fly-over. It should put to rest as to the type of aircraft used.
BTW, Right-click and save as target…..or whatever you use to have conserve the sites bandwidth.