Aircraft Super Thread Mk.VII

[spanner]

they do seem very very similar in size but heck the Gripen must be a petite little thing if its smaller than an F-16!

[spanner]

depending on how accurate this size comparison chart actually is then even the Rafale is a tiny plane too! Grigolosi is right when he says the F-16 is bigger than it appears!

[grigolosi]

i work on Al Dhafra AB here in Abu Dhabi. I see Rafales a lot since the French Armee De'la Air have a unit stationed here. That plane is compact too and not much bigger than the F-16. It is loud as hell though when it takes off. Ironically I have seen all these types flying from this base except the Gripen and the F-35.

[spanner]

[grigolosi]

Found this on the Facebook Crew Chief page. Interesting to look at as you see the advancements in fighter technology in the cockpit from the F-80 all the way to the F-35.

http://www.odometer.com/pop-culture/38591/18-incredible-cockpit-photos-show-the-american-fighters-70-year-evolution?utm_source=ysa&utm_campaign=38591-yde3#slide/0

[grigolosi]

I liked this video myself it was a little boring but you can't beat the taste in tail markings.......a few of you may recognize them...and there are no F-35's in this by the way...

Edited February 23, 2016 by grigolosi

[F-ZeroOne]

Nor, unless its the best kept secret in naval aviation, are there any F-16s.

[grigolosi]

I didn't see any....lol they must have had a new active camouflage like the predator's had.

[SchizophrenicMC]

Nor, unless its the best kept secret in naval aviation, are there any F-16s.

Not really a secret. The US Navy employs F-16s as training aircraft, and has since the 1980s. In fact there used to be a dedicated Navy variant: the F-16N.

US Navy website

[grigolosi]

Yeah they retired the first batch which were block 30 variants due to metal fatigue due to the Navy Aggressor pilots using them too "over zealously"! Unfortunately there are no F-16's nor F-35's in the video I posted. It takes A LOT of stress to cause metal fatigue in an F-16 by the way. The Block 30's were replaced with Pakistani Block 15 models that were in storage due to a weapons embargo so they were never delivered. This is the unit flying out of NAS Fallon now. Unfortunately they are the underpowered Pratt and Whimpey models and also the last Block 15 A models built.

[David Hingtgen]

The Block 40's have all those external stiffeners now though, any different from the N's issues?

[grigolosi]

The USAF block 30's had a mod performed in the early 90's called Falcon Up. They placed reinforcement brackets on the outside of the frame like the 40. They tended to leak fuel a little but they did the job. The Block 50 received the same reinforcement but they were incorporated into the internal frame so they look smooth. The Metal fatigue issues the N ran into were also found in the wing roots so the same mod wouldn't work completely. From what I have been told by some folks the Navy tended to over G them quite often even though they flew with out external tanks. That takes a lot of over G stress to cause metal fatigue in an aircraft designed for 9 g's.

[F-ZeroOne]

I'd forgotten about the aggressor F-16s, but what I meant specifically was that there aren't any carrier based F-16s...

[grigolosi]

Correct, F-Zero, the landing gear and mounts are wayyyyy to weak for any form of carrier landing. As a matter of fact the landing gear on the F-16 get changed every 1600 flight hours if my memory is correct. Plus the tail hook can't handle a carrier arrested landing. The tail hook does get used for emergency barrier engagements but the runway cable unreels far easier and slows the aircraft over a longer distance than the ones on a carrier.

[F-ZeroOne]

It never ceases to amaze me just how beefy carrier aircraft landing gear is, and how spindly non-carrier aircraft gear looks in comparison (I know the reasons why, mechanically).

[SchizophrenicMC]

The Block 40's have all those external stiffeners now though, any different from the N's issues?

Air Force pilots are showoffs, Navy pilots are simply insane.

[grigolosi]

A lot of the reinforcement was required for the increase in the bomb load capacity for the block 40 and above. The landing gear for the block 40/50 increased in size, we refer to them as heavy weight gear. The main tire size was increased also to help compensate for the higher bomb loads. So much so the gear door is bulged on all the newer block F-16's. The block 30 was limited on its takeoff load due to to the limits of its smaller landing gear and wheels. On the extreme end here is some test footage of an F-18 drop test. This gives you a true sense of what Navy landing have to go through. All aircraft are tested like this also....

Edited February 25, 2016 by grigolosi

[Nazareno2012]

I'd forgotten about the aggressor F-16s, but what I meant specifically was that there aren't any carrier based F-16s...

There was a planned carrier-based variant of the F-16, the Vought Model 1600. It lost to the F/A-18 Hornet for US Navy adoption.

[grigolosi]

I can see that since the Navy has always leaned toward twin engine aircraft for safety purposes. I also wouldn't want to see how much the frame weight went up due to the increase in frame and undercarriage strengthening it would have required.

[Nazareno2012]

I can see that since the Navy has always leaned toward twin engine aircraft for safety purposes. I also wouldn't want to see how much the frame weight went up due to the increase in frame and undercarriage strengthening it would have required.

A similar situation exists with the Sea Gripen (PDF data sheet), though due to the original design of the Gripen, with its rugged airframe and landing gear, the only modifications needed will be a naval tailhook and catapult tow bar.

[F-ZeroOne]

There was a planned carrier-based variant of the F-16, the Vought Model 1600. It lost to the F/A-18 Hornet for US Navy adoption.

I sort of knew that if I didn't specifically state "unless there was some proposed variant I've never heard of" someone would drag one up from the depths of the "Almost Birds" archive... Now you've said it, though, I remember reading that it was expected at the time that the winner of the LTF competition would be adopted by both services (and, I guess, the Marines)...

Edited February 25, 2016 by F-ZeroOne

[Shadow]

Are there any advantages or disadvantages between the P&W F100 -229 and the GE F110 GE-129? They seem to both output around 29,000. I was curious as to why the Block 40 and 50 F-16s use the GE plant while the Block 52 uses the Pratt.

[Vifam7]

Are there any advantages or disadvantages between the P&W F100 -229 and the GE F110 GE-129? They seem to both output around 29,000. I was curious as to why the Block 40 and 50 F-16s use the GE plant while the Block 52 uses the Pratt.

It's due to the Alternate Fighter Engine program.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/afe.htm

[grigolosi]

Personally I prefer GE engines over the P&W. Even though both are in the 29K range, the GE can actually be trimmed up to 32K with no real issues. Performing intake inspections on the Pratt is a pain. They have more blades and are smaller than the GE's fan and they have a stupid long PS2 probe that sticks out on the front of the bearing sump cover. This stupid probe gets hot as hell and you have to maneuver around it to inspect the blades In fact installing a Pratt is like throwing a hotdog down a hallway (please excuse my language if I offended anyone). The shear difference in the engines diameters is astonishing. I know Eagle fixers do not like GE's. They complain that they are "too oil sensitive", never mind the fact it is a more powerful engine.

[David Hingtgen]

The GE's *sound* cooler, and that's the important thing.

[Shadow]

The GE's *sound* cooler, and that's the important thing.

Good enough.

Also.

Never seen a Raptor engine start up.

[miles316]

Was that a Pyrotechnic starter on the F-22?

[SchizophrenicMC]

Was that a Pyrotechnic starter on the F-22?

Most American fighters have Jet Fuel Starters. Typically a small turbine, spun up by a hydraulic accumulator, that generates enough bleed air to start one of the engines cold in a few seconds. From a cold start, the engine typically reaches stable operation in under a minute, and is ready to start the other engine, if the aircraft is so-equipped.

[David Hingtgen]

And the F-15E's is painfully loud and shrill.

[grigolosi]

Unfortunately I couldn't find anything that showed the JFS start on an F-16 from the crew chiefs perspective. But I did find a start up from the cockpit on a maintenance run. Schizo is correct though. The JFS on an F-16 is initiated by placing the the switch to JFS start 2 ( it last longer than 1). This causes the JFS/brake accum to dump pressure through a hyd fuse which sends roughly 5 secs worth of press through the hyd start motor mounted below the JFS. At the same time pressure is sent the JFS doors which open and actuate a roller switch. This switch tells the DESSC (the brains of the start system) to start the JFS igniter. There are 3 valves mounted above the JFS that regulate fuel flow during the start at certain rpm percentages. The fuel ignites building both RPM's and torque. As the JFS builds rpms it rotates the ADG which rotates the PTO shaft to the engine causing the fan, compressor and turbine sections to spin. Once the engine hits around 25% RPM the throttle is moved over the the cutoff and the engine low energy igniters light the fuel in the combustion chamber. Once the engine begins its RPM climb the PTO shaft actually reverses and spins the other way. A clutch in the ADG disengages the the JFS from the PTO shaft and the JFS igniters stop and the fuel flow to the JFS shuts off... That is the startup in a nutshell. David is correct though...F-15 starters are really whinny and shrill. Watch DYRL and you will hear the F-15 JFS used as a sound affect on the Valkyries.Here is the video of the eng start from the cockpit.

Edited February 26, 2016 by grigolosi

[grigolosi]

Miles the last active American fighter to use cart starters were the F-4's. By the time I went into the AF(1990)they would only use them for a start check for scheduled maintenance to ensure the system worked. Outside of that they used an aircrart to start the J-79.

[grigolosi]

This is a lilttle off topic but this video shows one of the best damned birds I ever crewed and was my first 1 seater as a Dedicated Crew Chief..........91-0411...aka "Slick Fifty!

Edited February 26, 2016 by grigolosi

[SchizophrenicMC]

Oh come now, the F-15 JFS is the iconic fighter jet startup sound.

[David Hingtgen]

A recording doesn't match the real-life intensity/frequency. A lot of the effect is lost. It's way up there in my all time "bad auditory experiences in life".

[F-ZeroOne]

The LRSB has a number and a look, but is still the Bomber With No Name:

http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/26/b-21-bomber-air-force-lrsb/80976160/

Edited February 26, 2016 by F-ZeroOne