sv51macross Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 As I have already been schooled here on the forum, g-limits are not everything; the Hornet can turn tighter than the F-16. But what if it could turn as quick; ie, if it had higher g-limits? I have an idea...what if the Hornet's wings didn't have wingfolds? Would the g-capacity be higher, or is it in the wingroots/fuselage? Just wondering for a whiff I'm planning. And what would be needed to make a Tomcat do 9 g's? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
otis252 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) disregard, sorry. Chuck Edited October 14, 2008 by otis252 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 13, 2008 Author Share Posted October 13, 2008 Guess wing folds have no bearing on minimum radius turns Yes but I'm referring to g-limit, I think the F-18 might be able to turn the same rate (degrees per second or whatever) if it had a higher g-limit. It at least wouldn't have to dump bombs or stuff (example, a pair of Hornets encountering a set of MiG-29s. The Hornets, assuming failure of the AIM-7/AIM-120 to eliminate all opponents, would have to mix it agaisnt the light, manuverable fulcrums. The mud-ordinance would have to be jettisoned, right?) But an answer relating to g-load is the answer I'm looking for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
otis252 Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 (edited) Chuck By the way, for sure I'm no "Hornet expert". Edited October 14, 2008 by otis252 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedIndian Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) But an answer relating to g-load is the answer I'm looking for. Well, if you want a higher g-capacity, the airframe would need to be strengthened here and there, like on the wing roots, folds (or their elimination), hardpoints, vertical tail roots, horizontal tail spindles... You could avoid all that plus pilots getting exhausted by 10+ g's by giving your Whiff Hornet thrust vectoring and more powerful engines. Edited October 14, 2008 by RedIndian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 Okay, clarification: In my current fav flight/combat gsme, Over-G Fighters for Xbox 360, both the Legacy and Super hornets are restricted to 7.5G w/o drop tanks or bombs (AAM only). If this is inacurate then I apologize for my naivete but if it is an accurate limit, then is it in part due to th winfold mechanism's reduced strength compared to the normal wing structure? And would removal of the wing fold mechanism strengthen the wing and permit the raising of the limit by .5 - 1.5 G? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Don't understand your question. Both planes with no load? Failure of AIM-120, what about Winders? The Hornet is light and manuverable also.Both are about 9G max. Dog fight, I'll take the Hornet, down low, mid, high level. Even in the up close knife fight, Hornet wins. Why? MIG pilot flies 10 hours a year, our guys much more. There's so many things wrong in this that I don't even know where to start... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RedIndian Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 *snip*... then is it in part due to th winfold mechanism's reduced strength compared to the normal wing structure? And would removal of the wing fold mechanism strengthen the wing and permit the raising of the limit by .5 - 1.5 G? AFAIR, e.g. the Swiss Hornets (C-Model) have a 9-G-Limit. Don't know the limit for the Superhornet, but guess it's equal. The wing fold mechanism, my guess, is designed to have no impact on the wing's overall loading limits. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 AFAIR, e.g. the Swiss Hornets (C-Model) have a 9-G-Limit. Don't know the limit for the Superhornet, but guess it's equal. The wing fold mechanism, my guess, is designed to have no impact on the wing's overall loading limits. It can't be as strong as a solid wing, can it? I mean, it's a pair of hinges with a pin that "unlocks" on one. Seems to me it would have to be rather large to be as strong as the normal wing, or at least fairly heavy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
otis252 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) Enlighten us all Waco. Sorry, I'll take my post back. Chuck Edited October 14, 2008 by otis252 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
FAR148 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 It can't be as strong as a solid wing, can it? I mean, it's a pair of hinges with a pin that "unlocks" on one. Seems to me it would have to be rather large to be as strong as the normal wing, or at least fairly heavy. Okay, clarification: In my current fav flight/combat gsme, Over-G Fighters for Xbox 360, both the Legacy and Super hornets are restricted to 7.5G w/o drop tanks or bombs (AAM only). If this is inacurate then I apologize for my naivete but if it is an accurate limit, then is it in part due to th winfold mechanism's reduced strength compared to the normal wing structure? And would removal of the wing fold mechanism strengthen the wing and permit the raising of the limit by .5 - 1.5 G? Watched all of them at Dobbins ARB/NAS Atlanta air shows at show center, whip into a 360 in full AB. They all turn tight, they say about 7-9G's. Seems they all turn about the same. Must say that the Hornet turns inside the F-16 and F-15 at that low level there. Maybe it just looks that way as a spectator at show center. I'll check it out, plus the F-22 this weekend. Why? Just because the wings folds. Don't forget that naval aircraft are built much stronger then it's Air Force cousins. I would not try to compare video games and demo routines with real life. Steven L :) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) Disregard this post. Pretend you never saw it. :) Edited October 14, 2008 by Jennings Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Don't forget that naval aircraft are built much stronger then it's Air Force cousins. I would have to disagree with that. Certain parts may be "much stronger", but only those parts that get abused in landing perfectly good airplanes on boats (gear, gear mounts, tail hook, hook mounts etc). The rest of the airframe is really no different. Once an airplane is off the deck, what's the difference if it says "Navy" or "Air Force" on the side? The job is the same, just that the AF is smarter and better looking! :) As regards wing folds, actually, from an engineering standpoint, it's quite likely that the wing fold area is the strongest part of the wing. If designed correctly, it should make zero difference in the amount of loading a wing will take before departing from the airplane. J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 I would have to disagree with that. Certain parts may be "much stronger", but only those parts that get abused in landing perfectly good airplanes on boats (gear, gear mounts, tail hook, hook mounts etc). The rest of the airframe is really no different. Once an airplane is off the deck, what's the difference if it says "Navy" or "Air Force" on the side? The job is the same, just that the AF is smarter and better looking! :)As regards wing folds, actually, from an engineering standpoint, it's quite likely that the wing fold area is the strongest part of the wing. If designed correctly, it should make zero difference in the amount of loading a wing will take before departing from the airplane. J Haaayyyyy hayyyyyy now, let's not sling mud, the Rhino and Tomcat are in my top...ten aircraft ever (Tomcat in top 5)! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Jennings Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Haaayyyyy hayyyyyy now, let's not sling mud, the Rhino and Tomcat are in my top...ten aircraft ever (Tomcat in top 5)! Mud? What mud? The AF flies from nice looooooong paved runways B) J Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 Mud? What mud? The AF flies from nice looooooong paved runways B)J Exactly. AF pilots have a nice, long, clear, paved surface to line up with and land. Navy pilots I have alot of respect for (Even if I like AF planes better). they have to land a large, heavy fighter on a small patch of ground, having a tiny window of error. I may like the F-16 over the Legacy Hornet, but I would definitely not get my CarQuals. Would you, Jennings? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brian P: Fightertown Decals Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Not even gonna get involved in this one... Playing arm-chair pilot games about apples vs oranges vs kumquats isn't going to get any models built and with the exception of a very few people on here that probably won't chime in, all you're going to get is people's opinions. Some well informed opinions but still opinions. Oh, sure we can all say "A friend in a squadron once told me", but... FWIW, turn radius and G-limits don't have to be connected. There's some great fan-fiction and folklore about all kinds of jets putting on 10, 12, even 14 G's. Some of it's even true...get enough speed on the jet and pull hard enough and you can break all kinds of stuff!... -brian Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 (edited) There's so many things wrong in this that I don't even know where to start... You start drinking, that's where. And as far as what Brian said - I've never read any 'fan-fiction' about planes pulling 14 Gs, but even the THOUGHT of being in the same TIME ZONE as someone pulling 14G makes my body hurt. Edited October 14, 2008 by Karl Sander Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete "Pig" Fleischmann Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 the Hornet can turn tighter than the F-16. In what dorm room video game world is this possible? Pig Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete "Pig" Fleischmann Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Exactly. AF pilots have a nice, long, clear, paved surface to line up with and land. Navy pilots I have alot of respect for (Even if I like AF planes better). they have to land a large, heavy fighter on a small patch of ground, having a tiny window of error. I may like the F-16 over the Legacy Hornet, but I would definitely not get my CarQuals. Would you, Jennings? And I really shouldn't even bother with this one....time to change the channel. Pig Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sv51macross Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 In what dorm room video game world is this possible?Pig umm...people smarter and wiser than me, here on the forum have told me so... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pete "Pig" Fleischmann Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 umm...people smarter and wiser than me, here on the forum have told me so... I guess my 1000 hours in the F-16, knowledge of 3-1, and 12 years of flying against the Hornet don't add up to much. A blanket statement like "the F-18 can turn tighter than the F-16" is an invitation for correction. There are certain points on the overlayed Ps curves where this is possible-but the wider envelope of advantage is much bigger- where the F-16 will always out-rate/radius the Hornet. I have yet to meet or know of a Hornet driver on the forums-but any fighter pilot here on ARC will understand what I'm saying. Pig Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 The problem, as my astute single tailed driving friend has pointed out, is that there are very few absolutes in fighter maneuvering envelopes. An advantage in one area does not translate into a universal advantage. While there may be parts of the flight envelope--certain altitudes, speeds, weights, configurations, temps, etc.--where aircraft x out-turns aircraft y, that in no way shape or form translates into "X can outturn Y." In fact, even the term "turn" needs to be defined. Turn rate? Turn radius? Sustained? Instantaneous? Standard day? High/med/low altitude? At what airspeed? How much internal fuel? Combat configured, or airshow clean? It's a stupid discussion, quite frankly, unless you've got the Ps diagrams in front of you, and even then, you better know what the hell you're looking at and talking about. Further to that, whether one aircraft can "outturn" another in a part of the envelope becomes meaningless in the hands of a skilled fighter pilot, because you can bet that if an F-16 pilots knows an F-18 has an advantage in that corner of the chart, he isn't going to let the fight progress into that part of the envelope. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reddog Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 I would have to disagree with that. Certain parts may be "much stronger", but only those parts that get abused in landing perfectly good airplanes on boats (gear, gear mounts, tail hook, hook mounts etc). The rest of the airframe is really no different. Once an airplane is off the deck, what's the difference if it says "Navy" or "Air Force" on the side? The job is the same, just that the AF is smarter and better looking! :P I'm sorry but I can not let this staement just go unanswered for I strongly disagree with it. When an aircraft takes an arrested landing or a catapult launch the loads and stress of those actions are transmitted to the entire airframe, not just the gear, hook, etc. The gear and tail hook have to connect to the airframe, which also is effected by the dynamic loads of carrier operations. So therefore the entire airframe must be built stronger in order to absorb those loads and not to break apart. Try taking a F-15 or F-16 to the boat and see what happens, there will be a lot of FOD on the deck the first time one of those hits the wires. As to the Air Force is smarter and better looking.......we'll leave that one alone in order to protect the mis-informed. ;) Reddog :( Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Red_Baron_13 Posted October 14, 2008 Share Posted October 14, 2008 Reddog's right - the windfold has nothing to do with any G limits. The Swiss airplanes have the same wingfolds, and they have 9-g capability. I'm certainly not going to get into X can turn better than y etc... Any G limits are there because the airplane was not required to have a capability beyond that. The Hornet was designed to be a swiss army knife, not a sports car. Despite what many think about us defense contracters, we try to design something that meets the requirement and the budget, and the budget is king. So extra things like 12 G capability don't get put in because they cost too much... As several of the green pajama wearing folks in the forum have pointed out, there is much more to manueverability than G-limit. Afterall, a Pitts Special can out turn [insert favorite warplane here], but I don't see to many discussing the merits of the Pitts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.