| Author |
Message |
    
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, May 21, 2012 - 09:50 pm: | 
|
The maintainability of the F-18 is, true, far better than the F-14. Decades of experience do that. ( if you are lucky )
The F-18 defined state of the art in having it's own apu for deck starting, ( no cart to drag around between running jets cuts down the number of guys blown off the floating skyscraper ) modular electronics, and human size/height access.
The F-14 ( and a few other Navy planes ) also had some issues in that back in the Tube electronic days, if the circuit board was mounted to take the shock of landing on a wire, it sometime shed tube on catapult launch.....
The Canadian version of the F-18 is a seriously good fighter. It also has a spotlight on the left side, set up so you can turn it on with a finger on the throttle... If what's in the beam isn't supposed to be there, a quick flick of the wrist and the target is confetti. It's used because of Canadian Rules Of Engagement. ( a polite folk even at mach over the Arctic ) The F-18 also has a data sharing system that lets one plane use it's radar, and send the take to others. The Canadians use that to slide into spotlight range without radar emissions, to I.D. Migs, or airliners....
I'm told being lit up looks like an a-bomb went off right behind you. You have to turn the light up in the cockpit and run on instruments until your vision returns. Mig's so I.D.'d show every sign of total surprise, and it's a pretty effective setup.
The biggest downside of the F-18 in Naval service is the range. The old A-6 & A-7 could carry a bomb load farther, but slower, and were in no way fighters. ( esp. the A-6 )
The F-14's biggest issue was the engines, which were supposed to be only used to test the airframe, with much better ones for production models. Engine development fell behind, ( a common problem with new jet airplanes since the Me-262 ) and the F-14 was stuck with engines ok for a bomber, but not good for a fighter, since the TF30 didn't like jamming on & off the throttle. Also a weaker engine than the plane was designed for. That limited the load of Phoenix missiles that could be safely carried and still do go arounds.
The other problem was politics.
The Navy didn't use the Tomcat as a bomber until Monica's war, since they: didn't want to lose the intercept capability/were fighting internal battles, and with Congress, for the proper force mix & size/etc. When the F-18 program came along, there were serious issues with other programs competing, and, as usual, if you plan to make 2000 planes and instead only make 200, the price goes way up. See the F-22. Or the B-2. Or the......
See also the A-12 "Avenger"..... which didn't make it, but whose engines now power the F-18E/F. Just as the Phoenix ( AIM-54 ) rose from the missile designed for the F-108 ( never flown ) and the YF-12 ( fighter version of the Blackbird ) the AIM-47. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 11:55 am: |
|
they never replaced the range, payload and versatility of the A-6,
damn I miss that bird. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 12:04 pm: |
|
Loved the A6. Interestingly enough, it looked like a baseball bat from the side (if you imagine it without wings and a tail). It was its own metaphor. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 12:25 pm: |
|
as they have 'clossed' down NASA ... who is doing all the flight testing on all the new and experimental birds ?
Alot of metal came out of that 'research' and development cooperation. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 04:41 pm: |
|
The Manufacturer & Military test them.
NASA doesn't do fighter testing, It's supposed to be a clearing house and research facility. ( it's mission has changed a bit..... )
NASA has used various Military planes for research, like the SR-71, F5D, F8U, B-66, YF-107....etc. Some were modified production planes, and others were planes that failed to get contracts for production, but were high performance enough to test the limits of state of the art. The F5D Skylancers were used for flight profile tests for the X-20, data later used for the SHuttle program. |
Birdy
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 05:51 pm: |
|
The Tomcat was a big plane, the size of a F-111. Plus the Navy boys are hard on their toys. There's never been a landing on a Carrier...somewhat controlled crash is the best you can call it. PLus the salt water and salty air eats plane up.
The USAF flies C-130 C-17 & C-5 out of Wright Pat and they are over my house often. You look up and see a C-5 going in to land and start counting wheels and you'll get to 28 (I think) and he looks SO SLOW until you understand he doing 100-125+ knots on final.
To really get a grip on the size of a C-5 think about this. The Wright Brothers could have made their first flights INSIDE a C-5! With room to spare!
And if don't think the beast can get off the ground post haste check out the link. Turn up the volume and enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail page&v=nhocoW_dZPY |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - 08:08 pm: |
|
I used to love watching those C5's taking off at Mildenhall.
Funny as hell watching from behind as the wings slowly lose their droop & you wonder if they're just going to fold up over the fuselage.
One of the nightspots I used to frequent was the Galaxy club on Mildenhall base. Some great times, I had plenty of contacts to get me in in those days.
And yes, for those of you that know it, I felt like a spot on a domino sometimes. |
Kc10_fe
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 12:58 am: |
|
All the new fast planes are big. Watching the C-5 doing doing low level air drop was amazing. |
Xdigitalx
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 23, 2012 - 01:43 am: |
|
I saw a C5 do a low and slow flyby at an air show with full flaps and gear down... it was gigantic! |
|
