Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Nied]

Current discussion on ARC is "What is the Shornet's top speed". 

Conflicting info from pretty good sources, including .9, 1.3, and 1.6.  And we're talking airshow-clean configuration. 

PS---I've always thought the Super Hornet would rock in a dogfight.  But it's still ugly and slow compared to a Tomcat. 

396182[/snapback]

I saw that thread and it looks like the same uninformed Super Hornet bashing I see all the time on the internet: "ZOMG!!1 TEH ST00PID HORNET SI TEH SUX@RZ!!!!!!!!!!!11!!111one" I'm reminded of your comment about airplane guys you made a couple pages back.

Every time I see criticism of the Rhino it's from someone who doesn't fly it and hasn't fought it, or like in the ARC thread something along the lines of "my brother's friend's girlfriend's mother's second cousin is with VFA-103 and he said that it can't outrun a Cessna 172!" and every time I see an actual Hornet driver show up they rave about how great platform it is. See this thread at F-16.net for a good example of what I'm talking about (starting on the second page). I take these kind of "the Sewer Hornet can't break mach clean" comments with a salt mine's worth of salt.

Edited May 3, 2006 by Nied

[Knight26]

Oh man Phalanx you liked ID4 that movie was bigger POS then Top Gun. Hey let's fire HARMs at city sized spaceships.

[Nied]

Oh man Phalanx you liked ID4 that movie was bigger POS then Top Gun.  Hey let's fire HARMs at city sized spaceships.

396372[/snapback]

I thought those were AMRAAMs that mysteriously look exactly like Harpoons (Harpoons with their large anti-ship warheads at least make more sense than AMRAAMs).

I own a copy of ID4 that I got in college, I used to put it on when I had to write a paper. It was actually vastly more entertaining when most of my brain power was tied up writing the paper.

[Apollo Leader]

Oh man Phalanx you liked ID4 that movie was bigger POS then Top Gun.  Hey let's fire HARMs at city sized spaceships.

396372[/snapback]

I thought those were AMRAAMs that mysteriously look exactly like Harpoons (Harpoons with their large anti-ship warheads at least make more sense than AMRAAMs).

I own a copy of ID4 that I got in college, I used to put it on when I had to write a paper. It was actually vastly more entertaining when most of my brain power was tied up writing the paper.

396379[/snapback]

I just wish for once these Hollywood producers would just do a tad bit of research when putting these movies together. I remember after ID4 came out and talking to some Hornet pilots at the 1996 Offutt air show - the issue of the Harpoons being called AMRAAM's was discussed and I think I even recall one of them talking about the HUD displaying a Mach 3.5 airspeed.

[Apollo Leader]

Every time I see criticism of the Rhino it's from someone who doesn't fly it and hasn't fought it, or like in the ARC thread something along the lines of "my brother's friend's girlfriend's mother's second cousin is with VFA-103 and he said that it can't outrun a Cessna 172!" and every time I see an actual Hornet driver show up they rave about how great platform it is.  See this thread at F-16.net for a good example of what I'm talking about (starting on the second page). I take these kind of "the Sewer Hornet can't break mach clean" comments with a salt mine's worth of salt.

396358[/snapback]

Which F/A-18 is suppose to be the "Rhino"? Rhino has long been a nickname for the F-4 Phantom II.

[Knight26]

Super Hornets have been caleld rhino for a short while now because of the bump on their nose forward of the cockpit.

[Apollo Leader]

Based on what I've read, like most "unexpected" gun kill pics, the F-22 probably started out at a severe disadvantage for the sole purpose of seeing how a Super Hornet does at knife-range against a super-agile fighter. 

In other words, in a "real" scenario, the F-22 would have had a 99.9% chance of shooting the Super Hornet down before the Super Hornet even knew the F-22 was there.  That is the F-22's main way to fight---basically a long-range assassin.  I think in like 1 of 100 encounters could an F-15 even get close enough to actually dogfight with an F-22, the other 99 times it was shot down before it even knew the F-22 was there.

Thus, the Super Hornet was probably intentionally allowed to find the F-22 first, at close range, and then see if it could manuever with it to get a gun kill.  Or something along those lines.

I can't imagine it was a fair "start 50 miles apart, and see who kills who first"

I would guess the Super Hornet is the best US plane after the F-22 at knife range, and may even have superior high-alpha and nose-pointing ability (they have a 10G over-ride if they need it).  However, no plane would ever have the chance to get in close to an F-22 in the first place---unless you've set it up that way solely for training.

396170[/snapback]

Has the full story about this ever come forward? Anyway, thanks for posting these points.

Back during the late 40's/early 50's, B-36 Peacemakers often had to lower their altitude and speed because early Air Force and Navy jet fighters had a difficult time intercepting this bomber when it flew over 40,000 feet. This is a case of one aircraft scaling back on its performance and tactics in order to give another aircraft a better chance in making a kill.

[Nied]

Every time I see criticism of the Rhino it's from someone who doesn't fly it and hasn't fought it, or like in the ARC thread something along the lines of "my brother's friend's girlfriend's mother's second cousin is with VFA-103 and he said that it can't outrun a Cessna 172!" and every time I see an actual Hornet driver show up they rave about how great platform it is.  See this thread at F-16.net for a good example of what I'm talking about (starting on the second page). I take these kind of "the Sewer Hornet can't break mach clean" comments with a salt mine's worth of salt.

396358[/snapback]

Which F/A-18 is suppose to be the "Rhino"? Rhino has long been a nickname for the F-4 Phantom II.

396382[/snapback]

The Super Hornet with it's big nose mounted IFF "horn" has been nicknamed Rhino to tell it apart from the baby Hornet.

[Apollo Leader]

Super Hornets have been caleld rhino for a short while now because of the bump on their nose forward of the cockpit.

396384[/snapback]

It's probably like in the case of the "Sled"... the nickname I believe has been used for both the SR-71 and F-105 (though the F-105 was also called the Lead Sled).

[David Hingtgen]

Part of (and possibly the main) the reason for having a separate name (any name) for the SUPER Hornet is to eliminate confusion over radio calls----you REALLY don't want the landing signal officer nor arresting gear crew to be expecting the other type of Hornet---so regular Hornets go by Hornet, and Super Hornets go by Rhino, so there's no chance of being confused on the radio. (And since there's no F-4's nowadays there's no confusion there) Of course, being an F-4 fan I too think Rhino should be reserved for the F-4 only...

Anyways---my guess for the Super Hornet max speed is 1.6. Draggier and heavier than a Hornet with only a moderate thrust increase. And I'd guess the F414 is even more optimized for Mach .9 cruising than the F404 is. I do put a lot of credence in the "subsonic when loaded/low" though, as even very fast fighters won't get much past 1 when low, and many normal loads bring them below 1.5 at altitude.

[Kin]

What happens to airplanes if the onboard computer crashes? Does it fall down like an f-16 brick?

Let's say, how many airplanes don't have flybywire these days?

[Nied]

What happens to airplanes if the onboard computer crashes? Does it fall down like an f-16 brick?

Let's say, how many airplanes don't have flybywire these days?

396455[/snapback]

One of the backups kick in (most FBW systems are triple or even quadruply redundant).

[Phalanx]

What happens to airplanes if the onboard computer crashes? Does it fall down like an f-16 brick?

Let's say, how many airplanes don't have flybywire these days?

396455[/snapback]

One of the backups kick in (most FBW systems are triple or even quadruply redundant).

396462[/snapback]

And for those who don't know, FBW systems aren't really needed for most aircraft in general hence the world triple and quadruple because it's only used for aircraft that are aerodynamically unstable. A good example of this would be the SU-37. It has FBW system linked to it's 3-D TVE nozzles and the aircraft is aerodynamically stable with or without it unlike earlier models like the SU-33 and the SU-27 which are stable and don't use FBW control systems(yet....,maybe). So like what Nied said, their just backups that are simply thrown into the avionics of aircraft like airliners just for the hell of it.

[Nied]

And for those who don't know, FBW systems aren't really needed for most aircraft in general hence the world triple and quadruple because it's only used for aircraft that are aerodynamically unstable. A good example of this would be the SU-37. It has FBW system linked to it's 3-D TVE nozzles and the aircraft is aerodynamically stable with or without it unlike earlier models like the SU-33 and the SU-27 which are stable and don't use FBW control systems(yet....,maybe). So like what Nied said, their just backups that are simply thrown into the avionics of aircraft like airliners just for the hell of it.

396480[/snapback]

Actually the Su-27 has been naturally unstable from the beginning. Early models relied on an analogue system while newer variants (like the Su-30 and Su-35) have a digital FBW. I think you're thinking of the Mig-29, which did not have FBW in the beginning but newer versions (like the Mig-29M and the Mig-35) do.

[Phalanx]

And for those who don't know, FBW systems aren't really needed for most aircraft in general hence the world triple and quadruple because it's only used for aircraft that are aerodynamically unstable. A good example of this would be the SU-37. It has FBW system linked to it's 3-D TVE nozzles and the aircraft is aerodynamically stable with or without it unlike earlier models like the SU-33 and the SU-27 which are stable and don't use FBW control systems(yet....,maybe). So like what Nied said, their just backups that are simply thrown into the avionics of aircraft like airliners just for the hell of it.

396480[/snapback]

Actually the Su-27 has been naturally unstable from the beginning. Early models relied on an analogue system while newer variants (like the Su-30 and Su-35) have a digital FBW. I think you're thinking of the Mig-29, which did not have FBW in the beginning but newer versions (like the Mig-29M and the Mig-35) do.

396511[/snapback]

Well I already knew in general that the SU-27 had an aerodynamic design, but when you say it was unstable from the beginning, was it due to it's large size? When you also point out that I was talking about the MIG-29 being more stable than SU-27, was it due to the fact that the MIG-29 was relevantly shorter than it?

If you ask me, I think size is what made it unstable and since the Fulcrum shares somewhat similar design aesthetics with the Flankers except for the LERX. I think that by reducing the size of certain aerodynamically unstable aircraft and making slight to moderate changes to the airframe, you can get them to fly unless the Flankers were purposely designed to be aerodynamically unstable like the F-16.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Nied]

Well I already knew in general that the SU-27 had an aerodynamic design, but when you say it was unstable from the beginning, was it due to it's large size? When you also point out that I was talking about the MIG-29 being more stable than SU-27,  was it due to the fact that the MIG-29 was relevantly shorter than it?

If you ask me, I think size is what made it unstable and since the Fulcrum shares somewhat similar design aesthetics with the Flankers except for the LERX. I think that by reducing the size of certain aerodynamically unstable aircraft and making slight to moderate changes to the airframe, you can get them to fly unless the Flankers were purposely designed to be aerodynamically unstable like the F-16.

396529[/snapback]

Size has nothing to do with it. The F-14 is roughly the same size as the Su-27 family but it's stable. Generally relaxed stability aircraft with FBW just have a center of gravity that's back behind the wing (ie you could balance the whole plane from a point just behind the wing), while naturally stable aircraft always position the CG smack dab between the middle of the wing. The original Mig-29 variants have their CG right between the wings, later models had extra fuel tanks and avionics mounted further aft to push it's CG back behind the wing to give them relaxed stability. The Su-27 was designed with an aft CG from the beginning.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Nied

[Nied]

Sorry I realized where you got confused I left out my key point which is that the Su-27 has been naturally unstable with Fly by Wire from the begining. It's always been FBW.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Nied

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

And for those who don't know, FBW systems aren't really needed for most aircraft in general hence the world triple and quadruple because it's only used for aircraft that are aerodynamically unstable. A good example of this would be the SU-37. It has FBW system linked to it's 3-D TVE nozzles and the aircraft is aerodynamically stable with or without it unlike earlier models like the SU-33 and the SU-27 which are stable and don't use FBW control systems(yet....,maybe). So like what Nied said, their just backups that are simply thrown into the avionics of aircraft like airliners just for the hell of it.

396480[/snapback]

Actually the Su-27 has been naturally unstable from the beginning. Early models relied on an analogue system while newer variants (like the Su-30 and Su-35) have a digital FBW. I think you're thinking of the Mig-29, which did not have FBW in the beginning but newer versions (like the Mig-29M and the Mig-35) do.

396511[/snapback]

I thought the MIG-29A was analogue FBW as well? Or was it just FBW in pitch or yaw? I recall reading FUCLRUM! by one of the defector pilots of the late 80s, and he said the MIG-29 was designed and equipped originally with an analogue FBW since the Soviet feeling was that the next war to be fought between the USSR and US would utilize EMP to knock everything out, and they felt that with analoque signaling, they would be unaffected.

[David Hingtgen]

Just a slight comment--the Su-37 had (note the past tense) 2D nozzles. Even the Su-30MKI is 2D technically, but it can get 3D effects from them due to their off-axis pivot line. True 3D nozzles are rare---see F-15ACTIVE and MiG-29OVT/Mig-35. A Flanker with true 3D nozzles would be yet even more impressive than the -30MKI.

Also I think people are getting confused by what FBW is. It is a method used to send the pilot's commands digitally to the control surfaces. As opposed to physical braided steel cables running from the control stick to the elevators etc. While it is needed for planes which are unstable, its mere presence means NOTHING about the plane's stability. The A380 is one heck of a stable plane, but it's fully FBW just because Airbus likes FBW.

Definition of stability:

When saying a plane is stable or not, we're talking about pitch. And it all depends on the relative positions of the center of gravity (CG), and the center of lift (CL).

CG ahead of CL= stable

CG behind CL= unstable

If they're the same (hard to achieve, as CG and CL shift a bit during flight a bit) it's neutral. Also, most unstable planes are BARELY unstable (CG behind CL by a matter of inches), whereas most stable planes are quite stable.

Further definition of stability:

Stable planes will attempt to return to level flight if left to them selves (as in, taking your hands off the controls from any given attitude). Unstable planes will attempt to further diverge from level fight if left to themselves. Neutral planes will maintain their current attitude when left to themselves.

[buddhafabio]

as far as i can recall most modern fighters (designed 75 to later) are unstable. most airliners are stable planes.i dont know what to call f-14 and f-16 because there are stories of both planes returning to normal flight after pilot ejected after uncontrollable spins

but also alot of unstable modern planes use computers to fix the stibility issues.

Edited May 4, 2006 by buddhafabio

[Phalanx]

I just honestly assumed that any type of aircraft could fly regardless of it being AS, but I assumed that only aircraft that have radical new wing design concepts were considered AS and required FBW systems to make them able to fly. Like with what happened with the B-35 flying wings where the aircraft was AU because of it's new design but 40 years after the Flying wing concept was panned, it became successful as the B-2 spirit was the able to fly thanks to it's 150 onboard flight computer's and digital FBW control system. I always knew that FBW is used to automatically or electronically control and maintain the body surfaces, ailerons, flaperons and elevators.

Nied also pointed out to me that the MIG-29 were unstable from the beginning and I just had to think whether or not, like I said before that Mikoyan Gurevich made the Fulcrum AU on purpose just because the F-16 was and that since the Fulcrum was designed to counter the F-16, I assumed that they decided to match general characteristics of it to make it better than the Falcon by purposely making the Fulcrum's airframe AU, making it somewhat small, lightweight

and maneuverable just like the Falcon.

When it also came to my mind that triple or quadruple redundant FBW are what they are, does that mean that an aircraft has 3 or 4 FBW systems because they are that bad in terms being AU. By that, I mean that it takes 3 or 4 FBW systems to control it opposed to having just one or two? Also, if the Fulcrum boasts the same general characteristics of the F-16 in terms of size maneuvarbility and controls, how come the Falcon uses digital FBW opposed to the Fulcrum using Analog? Is it because the Russians weren't good at emulating digital FBW systems and that the best they could do was make it analog until they got better at perfecting FBW? Finally to verify this, is analog FBW where only the control stick is electronic and everything else is just dials and gauges where digital is where the stick is electronic and supplemented by small MFD LCD computers?

Edited May 4, 2006 by Phalanx

[Nied]

I just honestly assumed that any type of aircraft could fly regardless of it being AS, but I assumed that only aircraft that have radical new wing design concepts were considered AS and required FBW systems to make them able to fly. Like with what happened with the B-35 flying wings where the aircraft was AU because of it's new design but 40 years after the Flying wing concept was panned, it became successful as the B-2 spirit was the able to fly thanks to it's 150 onboard flight computer's and digital FBW control system. I always knew that FBW is used to automatically or electronically control and maintain the body surfaces, ailerons, flaperons and elevators.

  Nied also pointed out to me that the MIG-29 were unstable from the beginning and I just had to think whether or not, like I said before that Mikoyan Gurevich made the Fulcrum AU on purpose just because the F-16 was and that since the Fulcrum was designed to counter the F-16, I assumed that they decided to match general characteristics of it to make it better than the Falcon by purposely making the Fulcrum's airframe AU, making it somewhat small, lightweight

and maneuverable just like the Falcon.

When it also came to my mind that triple or quadruple redundant FBW are what they are, does that mean that an aircraft has 3 or 4 FBW systems because they are that bad in terms being AU. By that, I mean that it takes 3 or 4 FBW systems to control it opposed to having just one or two? Also, if the Fulcrum boasts the same general characteristics of the F-16 in terms of size maneuvarbility and controls, how come the Falcon uses digital FBW opposed to the Fulcrum using Analog? Is it because the Russians weren't good at emulating digital FBW systems and that the best they could do was make it analog until they got better at perfecting FBW? Finally to verify this, is analog FBW where only the control stick is electronic and everything else is just dials and gauges where digital is where the stick is electronic and supplemented by small MFD LCD computers?

396700[/snapback]

The Mig-29 was not unstable until the most recent variants as I said above. It's more that the Russians designed the Mig-29 as a replacement for the Mig-21 (which the F-16 was designed to counter). Mig felt it wasn't necesary to add FBW to counter the F-16's maneuverability, a naturally unstable aircraft with FBW definitely has advantages over a neutral or stable aircraft but it's not necessary to have an extremely maneuverable plane.

IIRC early model F-16s had analogue FBW before switching over to a digital system. FBW has absolutely nothing to do with what gauges are on the dashboard, in most cases those aren't even controlled by the same computer. You can have a Digital FBW aircraft with nothing but old fashioned "steam" gauges or you can have a non FBW aircraft with a completely glass cockpit (for example the F-15E, A-10C, F-14D, AV-8B, or any number of modern Boeing jetliners).

Edited May 4, 2006 by Nied

[David Hingtgen]

Phalanx---planes have 3 or 4 FBW systems for redundancy, not "difficulty in controlling them". Any unstable plane with FBW will basically self-destruct (most likely to due a RAPID pitch-up or increasing oscillations) if the system completely failed, and a stable plane with FBW would be VERY difficult to control if it failed. AFAIK no plane's ever lost all 4 of a quadruple-redundant system.

You can find the failure modes for most FBW planes if you look---most are designed so that if 1 fails there's no affect, 2 will lose some "protections" and maybe mild loss of response/performance, 3 will cause serious problems, 4 will either make the plane fall out of the sky instantly or be so hard to control the pilot will likely crash.

Also, a lot of planes have a lot more computers in their control scheme than you'd think. The F-15 for one. Despite being "totally traditional" it still has the computer interpret/command some aspects of the control stick inputs. I'd have to go look it up, but it doesn't flat-out obey a pilot's commands like a P-51 would. And of course the computer controls the intake lips when they're acting like canards.

[Nied]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the F-15's system is more of a "stability assist" that smooths the ride out rather than a full blown FBW.

[David Hingtgen]

Also, even fairly old jets have an "auto-rudder" to correct for yaw when the gun fires. (Assuming the gun's not on the center-line)

[Phalanx]

David, are those pivoting intake lips of the F-15 supposed to be variable geometry or artificial canards like you say? I heard some guy refer to them as having variable geometry or whatever.

[Knight26]

The intakes on the F-15 pivot to increases AoA perfromance and for high speed compressibility concerns. Correct me if I am wrong DH, I am a little tired as I write this.

[David Hingtgen]

F-15 movable intake lips are dual-role. The primary and most obvious use is to give the air the best route through the ramps and intake, mainly at high alpha---they can move down a lot further than they can move up. I believe they don't have much of a role for compression (that's what the ramps are for) but I do think they do move down a little at high speeds for SOME compression. I really should get the F-15's Dash 1 manual...

Their secondary use is pitch control at high speeds. Not too far off from the glove vane idea of the F-14---the faster you go, the less effective the h.stabs are. F-14A uses glove vanes to unload the h.stabs to restore effectiveness, but the F-15 actually uses the intake ramps as canards for pitch control---I've read that when supersonic, the ramps have 1/3 the effectiveness of the stabs. AFAIK they cannot operate differentially for roll control---at high speeds the F-15 (like most fighters) uses only differential h.stabs for roll control. Even if the intakes did try to control roll, they wouldn't be very effective.

Off the top of my head, the intakes can move down 15 degrees, and up 4 degrees, from the neutral position.

The Ace Combat games modeled it amazingly well. Get an in-cockpit view, swing the camera around to look at the intakes, then try varying speed and pitch. How they can get something that subtle correct but can't get the F-14's basic roll controls right I'll never know.

Edited May 5, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Skull Leader]

 

The Ace Combat games modeled it amazingly well.  Get an in-cockpit view, swing the camera around to look at the intakes, then try varying speed and pitch.  How they can get something that subtle correct but can't get the F-14's basic roll controls right I'll never know.

397073[/snapback]

Well, they can get a lot more "face time" with F-15s since they fly them... no excuse for them not to know them inside and out. Tomcats are a slightly different story (although if Hasegawa can put out umpteen million "Black Knights" boxings of the Tomcat, you'd think the Namco guys would've been right there next to them doing similar research... kinda surprises me that a BK scheme never showed up in any of the Ace Combat games.)

[David Hingtgen]

No excuse, 30 secs of watching "The Final Countdown" will clearly show the stabs providing primary roll control...

Also, Namco even got the INTAKE RAMPS right on the F-14. Watch closely--they'll start moving down as you go faster. A tiny little detail they did in favor of the far more important BIG MOVING STABS.

Edited May 6, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Skull Leader]

No excuse, 30 secs of watching "The Final Countdown" will clearly show the stabs providing primary roll control... 

Also, Namco even got the INTAKE RAMPS right on the F-14.  Watch closely--they'll start moving down as you go faster.  A tiny little detail they did in favor of the far more important BIG MOVING STABS. 

397239[/snapback]

... maybe you should write a letter...

[David Hingtgen]

My letter to Namco regarding "aircraft control scheme modeling" would be very long indeed. Then we could get into physical differences they didn't account for... (like the wrong seats in their F-14D)

[Phalanx]

Quickly going back to the F-22, FOX 5 News was just talking about the Raptor at Tyndall AFB and how they plan on probably using them in Iran or N. Korea. I know it's not much since we pretty much know everything about the F-22 but I thought that I just let you guy's know.

[Apollo Leader]

Quickly going back to the F-22, FOX 5 News was just talking about the Raptor at Tyndall AFB and how they plan on probably using them in Iran or N. Korea. I know it's not much since we pretty much know everything about the F-22 but I thought that I just let you guy's know.

397595[/snapback]

Has the first wing or squadron of Raptors at Langley gone operational yet? Seems pretty soon for them to be ready for a big combat deployment...

[Skull Leader]

Yes, Langley has been IOCed, so they could go into action at any point.