David Hingtgen Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 No, the -400 is actually one of the oldest versions of the F110. Standard GE engine numbering system: USAF engines are -1xx, and USN ones are -4xx. Thus the F-20's F404's are -100's while the F-18's F404's are -402's. The F110 for the F-16 includes the -100 and -129, while the F-14 has the -400. Putting F110 129's would have only let the the Tomcat 21 supercruise at like Mach 1.05 while basically clean, not enough to care about. The F110-GE-400's true power has been hard to figure out. It's officially listed as 27,000lbs, which makes sense since the basic F110 is 28,000lbs. However, the F-14D's own NAVAIR manual states 23,600lbs static at sea level, increasing to 30,200lbs at Mach .9 at sea level.
Phalanx Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Skull Leader, I have one more final question before joining ARC and I think it's essential but if possible, can you give me a list of apefaces I need to watchout for? Everybody knows that debates and discussions always escalate into arguments, which eventually escalate into flame wars as a result of apefaces taking friendly discussions way too seriously.
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Skull Leader, I have one more final question before joining ARC and I think it's essential but if possible, can you give me a list of apefaces I need to watchout for? Everybody knows that debates and discussions always escalate into arguments, which eventually escalate into flame wars as a result of apefaces taking friendly discussions way too seriously. 404039[/snapback] I wouldn't say apefaces, a lot of people on there definitely know their stuff, pin point accuracy and all, after all its a MODEL KIT forum....so its to be expected. Here's stuff that you should avoid if it has not been pointed out already -NO super hornet vs super tomcat threads. -NO asking raptor pilots about the classified specs for a plane. Classified means classified, do you think pilots would risk their wings just to tell stuff to some kid on a forum? -Limit the Flanker craze -NO stating facts that you THINK you know, but DON'T KNOW for sure You might want to try acig.org. They are not the most reliable but maybe they are more friendly? While you think that some of them might take stuff too seriously some of them have good reason to do so, it goes both ways, some noobs are too annoying and ask too many questions that are easily answered had they read through the forums or in the least gone to good reliable websites. And for what its worth for a noob coming to a model kit forum and not knowing a decent amount of airplanes......and asking a TON....well....the outcome is a bit obvious.
Nied Posted May 31, 2006 Author Posted May 31, 2006 Phalanx WTF are you talking about? Seriously with forums like ARC and F-16.net it's best to lurk for at least a month or two before you start posting, they're not noob freindly.
Phyrox Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 ...I just hated it that the pentultimate First response/interceptor platform the world has ever known had to suffer because of it. Just to nitpick...penultimate means next to last. The sentence doesn't make much sense as read. Maybe it's because I am grading papers and am up to my armpits in misused words. No offense intended.
David Hingtgen Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) Also, while I find it the best place to read about real planes, it is first and foremost a MODEL airplane forum. And most discussion is related to that in some way. Most people talking on the forums are doing it while waiting for a primer coat on their Hasegawa F-16 to dry. Oh, another thing. Do not bring up the topic of what position a Super Hornet's control surfaces are in when the plane's shut down. (can't believe that one was forgotten) Also do not ask about Academy vs Tamiya F-16 kits. Edited May 31, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Phalanx Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Phalanx WTF are you talking about?  Seriously with forums like ARC and F-16.net it's best to lurk for at least a month or two before you start posting, they're not noob freindly. 404045[/snapback] OK Nied I just wanted to save myself the relief of not getting flamed by some guy that's hostile to noob's that's all. I just wanted ask you guys the do's and don't do's before I make a fool out of myself and get lampooned by the rest of the users. Like it's best if you checked to see if you locked the doors in your house before you go out somewhere. I'm using this and Shin's previous thread as a reference for my knowledge aircraft. So far I;m on page 52 of the first thread and I got 53 more pages to go.
Nied Posted May 31, 2006 Author Posted May 31, 2006 Phalanx WTF are you talking about?  Seriously with forums like ARC and F-16.net it's best to lurk for at least a month or two before you start posting, they're not noob freindly. 404045[/snapback] OK Nied I just wanted to save myself the relief of not getting flamed by some guy that's hostile to noob's that's all. I just wanted ask you guys the do's and don't do's before I make a fool out of myself and get lampooned by the rest of the users. Like it's best if you checked to see if you locked the doors in your house before you go out somewhere. I'm using this and Shin's previous thread as a reference for my knowledge aircraft. So far I;m on page 52 of the first thread and I got 53 more pages to go. 404052[/snapback] My advice (and this goes for pretty much any message board I go to): Lurk for at least a month to get a lay of the land, that way you don't start posting stuff that might have been covered last week or last month. You're going to get a far better feel for how to act there by actually observing yourself for a whle rather than asking us and then going on a posting spree.
Nied Posted May 31, 2006 Author Posted May 31, 2006 Also, while I find it the best place to read about real planes, it is first and foremost a MODEL airplane forum. And most discussion is related to that in some way. Most people talking on the forums are doing it while waiting for a primer coat on their Hasegawa F-16 to dry. Oh, another thing. Do not bring up the topic of what position a Super Hornet's control surfaces are in when the plane's shut down. (can't believe that one was forgotten) Also do not ask about Academy vs Tamiya F-16 kits. 404051[/snapback] See I've been lurking on ARC for two months now and that one is news to me. Care to give us a rundown David?
Skull Leader Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) See I've been lurking on ARC for two months now and that one is news to me. Care to give us a rundown David? 404056[/snapback] Which one? Both arguments got so intense as to see an ARC member get banned. about the Tamiya vs. Academy 1/32 F-16 kits: When a very pixilated test shot of one of the sprues of the academy kit was released, a then-ARC member went so far as to say that the kit would suck like no kit had ever sucked before. It was later discovered that he had served in an advisory role for Tamiya when they had released their own 1/32 viper kit, so naturally he was a little partial. Multiple people called him down for striking out at a kit that no one had even seen yet, much less had a chance to build. He basically went on to call anyone that spoke out in defense of the academy kit as a weak-minded fool. The moderators finally had enough of him and banned him. They later allowed him to return, but I've yet to see him post (although I've noticed him lurking from time to time) about the Super Hornet flap "flap": ARC member "X" asked the ARC community which of the new 1/48 Super Hornet E kit was the best (Revell or the Hasegawa). ARC member "Z" went on to tell him that the new revell kit was about the biggest waste of time possible just because the wing flaps were hard-molded to the kit (whereas the Hasegawa provides the flaps separate, so you can drop them). He tried to say that a no time while the SH is on the ground are the flaps raised in anything other than a fully dropped position. A barrage of pictures proving otherwise arise and he goes on to say that those MUST have been taken immediately after shutdown (despite one of the moderators insistance that the pics were taken a number of hours after shutdown). Argument then shifts from being about the super hornet to the credibility of the moderator (which everyone promptly jumps to defend), ARC member "Z" finally pushed one button too many and faced the wrath of the mighty "Vorpal boot of banning" +10. Edited May 31, 2006 by Skull Leader
Skull Leader Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 (edited) Phalanx, that's sound advice. Just watch and learn for a month or two and you'll see how the social currents of the board move. We don't really have any knuckleheads to watch out for just now (I have personal people I'd just as soon not talk to or deal with, but I won't slander them here in public, but we members of IHAC maintain a list! ). Just bear in mind that there are real pilots and crews from every branch of the service and many from other countries that are members there, and if approached nicely, they'll be a wealth of knowledge for model builders. Just don't take their word on aircraft outside of their profession (for example, most USAF pilots don't know how to do anything but talk trash about USN jets... even when they're trying to look and sound official.) Just like here, make sure you're posting in the appropriate board (or after looking at all of them and being unsure, posting in the one you think is closest) ... and above all, post pics of your work! It's a model-building site and we all like to see pics! Edited May 31, 2006 by Skull Leader
David Hingtgen Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Skull Leader--there was a pic of a Shornet with flaps up hours after shutdown? I must see that. I thought the final consensus (and what I've seen) is that they droop pretty darn fast. (I wouldn't dare ask this at ARC)
Skull Leader Posted May 31, 2006 Posted May 31, 2006 Skull Leader--there was a pic of a Shornet with flaps up hours after shutdown? I must see that. I thought the final consensus (and what I've seen) is that they droop pretty darn fast. (I wouldn't dare ask this at ARC) 404107[/snapback] The final consensus was that there IS no final consensus. They could be found in a variety of settings depending on many different factors. The pics in question were Ken Middleton's. Perhaps you can ask him.
Knight26 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 I am not able to say why, but this is a very bad thing: http://www.f-16.net/news_article1812.html
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 I am not able to say why, but this is a very bad thing:Â http://www.f-16.net/news_article1812.html 404555[/snapback] I have a feeling it has to do with the sensitivity of the electronics to cold weather. This is just an assumption though.
Phalanx Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 I think it has something to do with the RAM on it's airframe being affected by the cold climate IMO.
Knight26 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 um, can't give details but it has to do with the cold yes, not on the electronic or RAM, lets face it it gets very cold at altitude.
Lynx7725 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 Engines? (Hey, we're bound to get the correct item eventually. )
Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 It'd make sense...the engines are relatively new powerplants in service
Nied Posted June 1, 2006 Author Posted June 1, 2006 Engines?(Hey, we're bound to get the correct item eventually. ) 404574[/snapback] The problem is that even if we do get it right Knight is required not to tell us.
Knight26 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 The problem with saying is whether or not it is classified at all, and in this case I am not sure so I am keeping my mouth shut. I have actually given plenty of clues when you really think about it.
Phalanx Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 I think it's because the ailerons, flaperons, vertical rudders, or engines freeze up at high altitudes I guess.
Nied Posted June 1, 2006 Author Posted June 1, 2006 The problem with saying is whether or not it is classified at all, and in this case I am not sure so I am keeping my mouth shut. I have actually given plenty of clues when you really think about it. 404594[/snapback] All I can say is thank god this isn't F-16.net, because you'd have already been shouted down with cries of "OPSEC OPSEC!!!!1 Teh ENEMY will hear you!!!!!!!!!1111one1" Great source of information, but good god are they paranoid over there.
Zentrandude Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) The problem with saying is whether or not it is classified at all, and in this case I am not sure so I am keeping my mouth shut. I have actually given plenty of clues when you really think about it. 404594[/snapback] Let me guess, something thats is suposed to be flexible gets stiff and starts cracking? Edited June 1, 2006 by Zentrandude
Nied Posted June 1, 2006 Author Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) Let me guess, something thats is suposed to be flexible gets stiff and starts cracking? 404628[/snapback] I'm guessing it's something that can't be cold on the ground. As Knight already said these planes regularly fly at 50,000ft where it's cold all the time, so it's got to be something that needs to be working down low (landing gear, APU, ingress/egress that kind of thing). ::Edit:: It's also interesting that they're deploying in the middle of summer, when temperatures should be around what they had over the winter at Langley. ::edit:: Edited June 1, 2006 by Nied
Knight26 Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 he he OPSEC, and yeah Phalanx you are way off. Will make no more comments on the subject.
David Hingtgen Posted June 1, 2006 Posted June 1, 2006 (edited) Hmmn. It's cold at altitude everywhere in the world---the ground-level climate doesn't have THAT big of an effect AFAIK. Once you get high up, temperature is pretty similar wherever you go. Does 5 degrees colder at alt over Alaska than Langley cross some threshold? Are we talking high as in 25-35,000ft cruise, or HIGH as in 50-60K? ::edit:: Ack, Nied already pointed that out. Cold-soak issue? But I mean, a 777 can start up after like a 2-day ice-water soak in a Siberian winter---I'd expect a sheltered F-22 to do better. Edited June 1, 2006 by David Hingtgen
Nied Posted June 1, 2006 Author Posted June 1, 2006 he he OPSEC, and yeah Phalanx you are way off. Will make no more comments on the subject. 404634[/snapback] You really are a tease Knight26.
Mislovrit Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 Used for spares probably. Either that or they were destroyed (again to avoid them getting into the hands of the IRIAF). 403971[/snapback] Understandable in 1980 but in the early 1990ies?
Skull Leader Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 (edited) in the past year alone we've caught at least 10 people/companies trying to smuggle parts to the Iranians for their Tomcats. It's still a huge concern. Edited June 2, 2006 by Skull Leader
Phalanx Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 Damn, I had no idea the Iranians were trying to refurbish their Tomcats by doing that. After all, they have the original A models that haven't received a huge update in the past 30 years. So I can pretty much imagine that they are going through great lengths just to make their fighters more effective against cuurent aircraft.
Zentrandude Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 in the past year alone we've caught at least 10 people/companies trying to smuggle parts to the Iranians for their Tomcats. It's still a huge concern. 404704[/snapback] You think they should be able to make their own by now. They have the resources to do it.
David Hingtgen Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 You'd think the Navy would let museums have more parts for their display Tomcats--- every part mounted on a US one means it won't be mounted on an Iranian one! Honestly I think museums might be more secure, rather than having the parts in "miscellaneous DOD warehouses". The stuff the military "loses" is scary.
Zentrandude Posted June 2, 2006 Posted June 2, 2006 You'd think the Navy would let museums have more parts for their display Tomcats--- every part mounted on a US one means it won't be mounted on an Iranian one! Honestly I think museums might be more secure, rather than having the parts in "miscellaneous DOD warehouses". The stuff the military "loses" is scary. 404744[/snapback] You can say that again. I remember my dads old stories when he was station in guam as a painter for helocopters he uncovered a coffee can full of gold plated nuts and bolts that be belived belong to the presidental helocopter. how it sent to there he has no clue.
Nied Posted June 2, 2006 Author Posted June 2, 2006 Damn, I had no idea the Iranians were trying to refurbish their Tomcats by doing that. After all, they have the original A models that haven't received a huge update in the past 30 years. So I can pretty much imagine that they are going through great lengths just to make their fighters more effective against cuurent aircraft. 404728[/snapback] The Iranians have been trying various re-fit programmes on their Tomcats since the Iran/Iraq War. The May issue of Combat Aircraft Magazine has a pretty in depth article on the IRIAF written by Tom Cooper. Apparently the Iranians have been able to rig a new launch rail to allow carriage of the AA-11 missiles they bought with their Mig-29s. They've also done extensive re-fits to the avionics, replacing most of the AWG-9s analogue components with digital ones.
Recommended Posts