dark light

Bug Lover

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 124 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F/A18-A/C whats the difference? #2617409
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    The main difference is the number, placement and shape of the external antennas and/or sensors.

    in reply to: The name of the color of YF-23's 2nd Prototype #2644643
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    FS-36320 Dark Ghost Gray
    FS-36375 Light Ghost Gray

    in reply to: A name for the F-35 JSF? #2607598
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Since the F-35 looks like the F-22 Raptor I know of a few people calling it the F-35 Mini Me 😀

    in reply to: Boeing MRF-CALF study #2612445
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Cool.

    Do you have any more?

    in reply to: F-18E performance #2615428
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: F-18E performance #2616567
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: F-18E performance #2616750
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: The meaning of "V" in VF-84 (US Navy Fighter Sqdrn) #2624213
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    V= Fixed winged aircraft….now

    in reply to: JSF program website #2629058
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    I haven’t seen that Boeing concept drawing. Do have any more!?

    BTW, good post

    in reply to: Aviation jokes #2636174
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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!

    in reply to: Yf 23 or YF 22? #2639030
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: F-15 vs. Su-27 #2655323
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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!

    in reply to: Just Curious… #2655534
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Lighter Moments #2656025
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    Thanks for posting it……funny stuff.

    in reply to: F-22A Pics, News & Speculations Thread #2656190
    Bug Lover
    Participant

    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.

    http://www.hotr.us/video/starspangledbanner.wmv

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 124 total)