Joe Hegedus Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I hear tell that there's only one or two configurations that caused a problem with separation (at least in the modelling), and THAT drove the toe-out - even though the configuration(s) in question is/are almost never carried. All I know is I find it funny when folks in the VAQ community who don't know any better get all excited thinking they'll be able to zorch around supersonic with their hair on fire when they're really getting something that aerodynamically will behave very similar to what we have now... .86IMN, 4ish G's. Yes, it was only a couple of specific loads that caused all the commotion. As for the VAQ community, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Mach and G limits you mention turn out to be a limit imposed by the pods themselves rather than what their effect might be on the aerodynamics of the jet but as I said, the "G" isn't my project so I'm not that close to it. I do know that there are particular stores that are limited to speeds/Gs below what the jet can likely take them to because the store itself won't stand up to the stresses of being drug around the sky at those speeds/Gs. Link to post Share on other sites
Joe Hegedus Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Yeah Joe, I didn't think anything would comeabout at this point in the program, I was just thinking out loud as to maybe why the folks at MDD/B didn't do that to begin with ... It would seem simpler to my layman's eyes ... Gregg There were several options that were put forth as to how to "fix" the "problem". The pylon toe was what the Navy program manager decided to use, that's why MDD/B did it that way. Link to post Share on other sites
Heyjoe Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Why would they bother modifying an E? They would just have to retest everything on a two seater config wouldnt they? The rapid approval of G model snatched the available F models on the production line so the last Fleet F squadron was held off to allow G models to begin production. There are E models to spare while every two seater is spoken for (hence VF-31 transition to E rather than F model). I've recently seen at least two E models at Pax on VX-23 flight line with the G model wingtip pods. Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 That model has long since gone to the "boneyard". Maybe it's time to do a newer version.... Yep. But make it the complete-air-wing-in-one craft complete with the detachable rotor blades and COD tow pod....Maybe a detachable nose section (a la F-111A/:cheers: so a more suitable one for the chopper role.... Link to post Share on other sites
f4h1phantom Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 That's because it's still classified. Aviation Leak says that the next version... HHFA-18 will be used for CSAR and the insertion and pickup of Spec Op forces behind enemy lines. The UHFA-18 will be used for the standard movement of supplies and personnel. This will save an enormous amount of money by having one common airframe on the carrier with a single logistics infastructure.Rodney Great news, Rodney. Is the HHFA-18 going to receive the Fulton recovery system? Sincerely, Jorge. Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 lol...if we keep this up, they'll use a Hornet variant as the onboard firetruck...the tow tractors...maybe even the carrier itself.... Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 lol...if we keep this up, they'll use a Hornet variant as the onboard firetruck...the tow tractors...maybe even the carrier itself.... Hmmmm... this could fit into the "cost wise readiness" montra that the Admiral is pushing right now... Link to post Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 NEWS FLASH! US Navy to buy SF-18J Escort Hornets in bid to retire AEGIS Cruisers and Destroyers. In an ever increasing bid for commonality, the US Navy has decided that escorts for its carriers are now obsolete and squadrons of the new SF-18J flying at low level and low speed, can perform the same mission with greatly reduced crew. Details are scarce, but following rumors of a giant GF-18Q to serve as an actual carrier for the Navy's F-18 fleet, it isn't surprising... Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Man...you know what's scary is that it's getting tougher and tougher to tell the fact from the fiction in here.... Link to post Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I hear they're working on a submersible one too... but they keep losing the prototypes! Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Yes, it was only a couple of specific loads that caused all the commotion. As for the VAQ community, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Mach and G limits you mention turn out to be a limit imposed by the pods themselves rather than what their effect might be on the aerodynamics of the jet but as I said, the "G" isn't my project so I'm not that close to it. I do know that there are particular stores that are limited to speeds/Gs below what the jet can likely take them to because the store itself won't stand up to the stresses of being drug around the sky at those speeds/Gs. Joe- As of right now, the .86 limit is driven by the ALQ-99 pods as we now know them - because that's the limit to where they were tested - and the limiting factor for the pods themselves is the ram air turbines on the front. However, even if the RATs were redesigned, or if the existing ones were found to be suitable for a higher speed, you're correct to note that the aerodynamic effects on the jet are going to be the real problem. Thanks in part to the infamous toe-out, a typical combat load for the EA-18G (as we - NSAWC, EAWS, FIT, et al - invision it) will yeild similar performance to a "5 wet" E or F. And, unlike the E's and F's, which will be offloading their gas or air-to-ground-ordnance, we'll be keeping a lot of ours on the jet and I'm not sure anyone really knows what that means for the range/endurance numbers... Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Hmmmm... this could fit into the "cost wise readiness" montra that the Admiral is pushing right now... Please, let's push that big fun button of mine.... Link to post Share on other sites
Matt Shropshire Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Except for the interesting conversation involving factual and interesting information on the EF-18G, posted mostly by Joe and Karl, a good chunk of thid thread should have been posted in the TPC. And since there was so many remarks about one airframe on the flight deck, remember in the end it helps save money by having common airframes when you are in the middle of the ocean. And the fact being one of the primary reason the F-14 was retired was maintance time vs flight time. Something all old airframes suffer from. And as the vultures start to circle, I actually miss seeing decks full of F-14s and A-6s. But, when you launch a plane off a carrier deck then slam it back on to it at the end of the mission you can only fix it so many times. Edited June 12, 2006 by Matt Shropshire Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Please, let's push that big fun button of mine.... "That was easy!" :) Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Except for the interesting conversation involving factual and interesting information on the EF-18G, posted mostly by Joe and Karl, a good chunk of thid thread should have been posted in the TPC. Oh yeah? Wait 'til it comes true!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Please, let's push that big fun button of mine.... :D Your button, my button, and many more in NAVAIR that hold similar views... its interesting going to the Admiral brief and hearing how they phrase things and then reading the 'in between the lines' meaning. Also, you know a 'Lunker'? Edited June 12, 2006 by Rodney Link to post Share on other sites
Rodney Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Except for the interesting conversation involving factual and interesting information on the EF-18G, posted mostly by Joe and Karl, a good chunk of thid thread should have been posted in the TPC.And since there was so many remarks about one airframe on the flight deck, remember in the end it helps save money by having common airframes when you are in the middle of the ocean. And the fact being one of the primary reason the F-14 was retired was maintance time vs flight time. Something all old airframes suffer from. And as the vultures start to circle, I actually miss seeing decks full of F-14s and A-6s. But, when you launch a plane off a carrier deck then slam it back on to it at the end of the mission you can only fix it so many times. Ok, so maybe we should post some of this in TPC but I didn't know absolutely no joking allowed in any other forum. I don't know if your having a bad week or what but its obvious that most of these posts are in jest. I don't believe that any of us we're intending to hurt any feelings here. Most of us know why F-14 went away and why F/A-18 is here. Yes, it saves money... but what we are also seeing here in NAVAIR is cuts that affect mission capability and current/future weapons development. I only hear tidbits about EA-18G but do work quite a bit with F/A-18A-F including a project pilot in my office that flies all these types . I think I have a fair understanding of the Hornet and capability as I quiz our project pilot (ex F-14 pilot so I get interesting comparisons) all the time. Rodney Edited June 12, 2006 by Rodney Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 (edited) Your button, my button, and many more in NAVAIR that hold similar views... its interesting going to the Admiral brief and hearing how they phrase things and then reading the 'in between the lines' meaning.Also, you know a 'Lunker'? Had heard of him when I was in the fleet (I showed up to the squadron some time after he had left but he was a popular star in the quote log), then met him once at the bar when he was here for NAVAIR slats. "Cost Wise Readiness" - the notion we can learn to fly and fight better by flying LESS. Thereby saving money for other admirals' pet projects like designing new uniforms, devising a navy-wide computer system that has the speed of molasses and the temperment of Skynet, etc. All while combat profieciency atrophies. Edited June 12, 2006 by Karl Sander Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 "Cost Wise Readiness" - the notion we can learn to fly and fight better by flying LESS. Thereby saving money for other admirals' pet projects like designing new uniforms, devising a navy-wide computer system that has the speed of molasses and the temperment of Skynet, etc. All while combat profieciency atrophies. Kolja, Here, you need this more than I do. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Kolja, Here, you need this more than I do. Regards, Murph Strangely enough, I seem to have develop I violent allergy to Kool-Aid. I'm sure that will be something of a limit on my career longevity, but that doesn't cost me much sleep. Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Strangely enough, I seem to have develop I violent allergy to Kool-Aid. I'm sure that will be something of a limit on my career longevity, but that doesn't cost me much sleep. My advice to you is to drink heavily. Link to post Share on other sites
PhantomPhreakII Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 This just in from Boeing... ST. LOUIS, June 12, 2006 -- The Boeing [NYSE: BA] EA-18G program test team reached a key milestone May 30 when it flew a modified F/A-18F equipped with wingtip antenna and high- and low-band jamming pods for the first time. The flight was part of ongoing flying qualities and carrier suitability testing to validate the EA-18G's shipboard effectiveness. The EA-18G Growler is a derivative of the F/A-18F Super Hornet, that has been flying from carriers since 1997. The three-month carrier suitability tests, flown by U.S. Navy pilots, include catapult launches and cable arrestments from test facilities at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md. Initial tests will measure aircraft loads to verify that the landing gear and airframe meet design specifications. The tests also will monitor the catapult and arrestment systems to assess if the Growler settings are accurate. "These tests are a big milestone for the EA-18G program," said Mike Gibbons, Boeing EA-18G program manager. "We know the Super Hornet airframe works well in challenging at-sea conditions. Now we're verifying that the EA-18G, with potentially greater bringback for fuel and weapons capacity, will work just as well." Over 25 flights, the carrier suitability tests will measure how well the Growler performs in a variety of takeoff and landing situations, including high sink, free flight engagement, on- and off-center catapults and arrestments. The EA-18G testing will allow for higher landing weights than the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to provide greater flexibility in the return of high-value jamming pods plus other weapons and stores. Boeing, acting as the weapon system integrator and prime contractor, leads the EA-18G Growler industry team. Northrop Grumman is the principal subcontractor and airborne electronic attack subsystem integrator. The Hornet Industry Team will divide EA-18G production across Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Electric and Raytheon manufacturing facilities. The System Design and Development program concludes with an Initial Operational Capability in 2009. Naval Air Systems Command PMA-265 is the U.S. Navy acquisition office for the EA-18G. and here's the picture.. http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2006/q2/060612b_pr.html Harald Link to post Share on other sites
Karl Sander Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 My advice to you is to drink heavily. The one thing I'm actually good at Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Here's a photo ... Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Andrew D. the Jolly Rogers guy Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Ah! The beast unmasked!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts