|
Imp Boy posted:drat, that's what I get for posting before going to sleep. I distinctly remember reading about turrets getting jammed up and some poor gunner getting squished on a belly landing. It was still a lovely job to be stuck in a bubble for 10 hours at a time. Well, it's still quite possible for a bullet to hit the ring or something and jam the rotation mechanism. Just that a loss of electrical power wouldn't stop it.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
So I found a photo at my grandfathers place the other day. I was pretty similar to this: Click here for the full 1400x996 image. With the inscription "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." He hated commies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 08:58
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:He wasn't kidding about them getting old. I forget the ridiculous number of hours he said were on that particular airframe, but it's a lot more than McDonnell Douglas intended. It's strange; I still think of the F/A-18 as being new 
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 11:15
|
|
|
Speaking of old planes, this picture is of a Sabre in a town park near me. Gotta love NY. Ricers will put JDM on anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 11:23
|
|
|
meltie posted:It's strange; I still think of the F/A-18 as being new The original Hornet design competed (and lost) against the F-16 in the early 70s. The Super Hornet is a totally new design, with about as much in common with the old Hornet as the new Camaro has with the old. SHornets entered production in the mid-late 90s, they are new planes, and among the most advanced fighters in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:18
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The original Hornet design competed (and lost) against the F-16 in the early 70s. The Super Hornet is a totally new design, with about as much in common with the old Hornet as the new Camaro has with the old. SHornets entered production in the mid-late 90s, they are new planes, and among the most advanced fighters in the world. So out of curiosity, given that they are completely new planes, why did they keep the layout (and the name) of the old Hornet?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So out of curiosity, given that they are completely new planes, why did they keep the layout (and the name) of the old Hornet? Well, the Navy sold Congress on the idea that it was an upgraded version. It was based on the original Hornet, but there's little/no commonality among parts. The engines, radar, avionics, and airframe itself are all different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 19:55
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:So out of curiosity, given that they are completely new planes, why did they keep the layout (and the name) of the old Hornet? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now if the Air Force could get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that fact, maybe we can focus on some redesigned F-15's/16's.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 20:09
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Now if the Air Force could get their heads out of their asses long enough to realize that fact, maybe we can focus on some redesigned F-15's/16's.  This is the thinking that led to the USAF getting it's rear end kicked early in the Korean War.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Speaking of old planes, this picture is of a Sabre in a town park near me. that poor sabre!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 05:00
|
|
|
Nice timing for all of the Hornet love. My wife and I are scanning in some old photos, and the story behind these is that her kindergarten teacher's husband was in Desert Storm, sent these back to her, and she just ran extras for her class. So, check out all of these much younger F/A-18s, probably C's by the timing but I'm sure someone can correct me if they're actually A's. Edit: Wikipedia (by searching VMFA-235) calls them out as F/A-18Cs.      The Hornet is such a pretty plane, too. IOwnCalculus fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 06:55
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Well, it's still quite possible for a bullet to hit the ring or something and jam the rotation mechanism. Just that a loss of electrical power wouldn't stop it. I saw a documentary once that showed archive film of a B-17 (I think) belly landing with the ball turret still in the down position. Can't remember what had caused the problem but guessing hydraulics since they couldn't get the gear down. Poor guy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 08:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:The original Hornet design competed (and lost) against the F-16 in the early 70s. The Super Hornet is a totally new design, with about as much in common with the old Hornet as the new Camaro has with the old. SHornets entered production in the mid-late 90s, they are new planes, and among the most advanced fighters in the world. As for why the Super Hornet looks like the old one, the Navy needed a new plane but Congress wouldn't pay for a new one, so they made it look kinda like the old one, removed any indication of scale from the pictures, and told Congress it was just a revision of the tried-and-true. That happens a lot, though the only others I can think of offhand are the F-86D and the new, wider-bodied CH-53 the Marines might be getting soon. I think there's also an all-new F-15 in the works, but it might actually be an upgraded Mudhen, rather than a full redesign like the Sabre Dog and Super Hornet. Chillbro Baggins fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 10:45
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
FullMetalJacket posted:that poor sabre! The town is already in contact with the Air Force to restore it, don't worry.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 12:37
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:The specific Hornet I photographed was built in the mid-'80s, and, according to the pilot, is getting close to triple the flight hours M-D designed it for (it was meant to last 3 and has over 8, but I can't remember if that's thousands or ten-thousands). Fighters are in the thousands, some heavies can make it into the tens of thousands. Vastly different stresses on the airframes. But there are modernization programs that can greatly increase a fighter airframe's lifetime, doubling it or more. I can see this happening to the Super Hornets eventually, since I don't think there will be a 6th generation fighter until at least the 2030s. The old Hornets will just have to survive until the F-35 really gets in service. Are you talking about the Silent Eagle? It's an upgrade...basically an F-15 with RAM coatings, V-tails, and instead of the F-15E (and newer) conformal fuel tanks, it stores missiles inside. I think it's flown yet, but it looks pretty neat with that V setup. Godholio fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Apr 18, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
 Why is this awesome? It's The Goon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2010 17:57
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:
It even looks like a 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 02:19
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:Nice timing for all of the Hornet love. Easiest way to identify whether a Hornet is an A/B or C/D model:  Those two small bumps on the spine of the plane right behind the cockpit are only present on the F/A-18C and D models. The more you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
A good point - if the likely enemies of the USA were upgrading to 5th generation fighter aircraft en masse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 03:53
|
|
|
Not necessarily. 4th gen fighters en masse would pose a significant problem for a total fleet of 180 F-22s (including training, depot maintenance, etc). Plus there's the whole "this airplane has to last us for at least 30 years like the last one" which kinda makes you wonder what might happen in the next 3 decades, since we're stuck with what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 04:23
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Those two small bumps on the spine of the plane right behind the cockpit are only present on the F/A-18C and D models. The more you know. The engine inlets also differ. One is more circular, the other more angular. I think the Super Hornet has the angular intakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
movax posted:The engine inlets also differ. One is more circular, the other more angular. I think the Super Hornet has the angular intakes. Ummm, yeah, the Super Hornet is the the E/F. C/D are not the Super Hornets thus they have the rounded intakes just like the A/B.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
movax posted:The engine inlets also differ. One is more circular, the other more angular. I think the Super Hornet has the angular intakes. The Super Hornet has the angular intakes, but the C-model isn't a Shornet. Edit: Bastard!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 05:06
|
|
|
We just went over how the F/A-18E/F is basically a completely different aircraft from the A-D. Congress wouldn't approve a new airplane for the Navy, so they made their new plane look like the Hornet and called it an upgrade. The thing is as big as an F-14 (though not as heavy) and really only shares the avionics package with the older F/A-18s. Look at the top view in particular:  The Rhino (E/F) is big and impressive, but it can't compare in appearance to the original. An F/A-18 with all the stores and pylons removed is beautiful to see. orange lime fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
orange lime posted:We just went over how the F/A-18E/F is basically a completely different aircraft from the A-D. Congress wouldn't approve a new airplane for the Navy, so they made their new plane look like the Hornet and called it an upgrade. The thing is as big as an F-14 (though not as heavy) and really only shares the avionics package with the older F/A-18s. Saw this guy fly a demo yesterday at Sun-n-Fun. I have seen it before but nothing beats watching the Rhino fly. It is extremely loud and music to my ears.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 06:56
|
|
|
 
Canary Yellow fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Apr 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 08:43
|
|
|
 I wonder if the folding wings prevent tip mounted AIM-120 C's like the F-16.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 08:49
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Silly Hornet! Ten AMRAAMs is too many AMRAAMs. There won't be any left for the other planes. Go put some back. Like I said above, the Hornet is beautiful, but only when it doesn't have crap on its wings. Here's a CF-18 with even the wingtip rails photoshopped off:  Purty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 09:08
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:Easiest way to identify whether a Hornet is an A/B or C/D model:   orange lime posted:but only when it doesn't have crap on its wings. Here's a CF-18 with even the wingtip rails photoshopped off: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 09:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1RV4O9vUqU
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 11:45
|
|
|
renraku posted:Ummm, yeah, the Super Hornet is the the E/F. C/D are not the Super Hornets thus they have the rounded intakes just like the A/B. Yeah, sorry my fail. Didn't read closely enough to see that previous poster was talking purely about the Hornet, not Super Hornet. So, how about those wacky Canadians and their fake painted cockpits on the underside of the CF-18? I thought there was another air force that did the same, but I can't think of it at the moment (IAF?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
Minto Took posted:Ace Combat 6 for reals, yo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 17:30
|
|
|
movax posted:So, how about those wacky Canadians and their fake painted cockpits on the underside of the CF-18? I thought there was another air force that did the same, but I can't think of it at the moment (IAF?) South African Air Force. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 17:48
|
|
|
movax posted:So, how about those wacky Canadians and their fake painted cockpits on the underside of the CF-18? I thought there was another air force that did the same, but I can't think of it at the moment (IAF?)  In other A-10 news, they added a backseat to one for night/adverse weather operation, but the Air Force didn't buy it. It was embarrassing enough having the one slow mover, couldn't bear the thought of having two types taking attention from the sexy F-15 and F-16. Looks kinda  , but I've always liked it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 17:58
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:USAF does it on the Hog. You know its a shame that they aren't really making 2-seaters any more. How are
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 18:54
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:In other A-10 news, they added a backseat to one for night/adverse weather operation, but the Air Force didn't buy it. It was embarrassing enough having the one slow mover, couldn't bear the thought of having two types taking attention from the sexy F-15 and F-16. Looks kinda D'aww, looks so  . I was googling to check for the differences between Hornet variants E/F (wasn't sure if the two-seater was training only), and came across this in the Google listing:google posted:The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a combat-proven, 5th generation strike fighter with built-in versatility. The Super Hornet's suite of integrated and networked ... The website proper doesn't say that anymore, but I found it kind of interesting. Guess they changed their minds later (The SH is considered 4.5+ isn't it?)
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 19:52
|
|
|
movax posted:(The SH is considered 4.5+ isn't it?) I suppose that depends on who you ask. Jane's Aircraf? 4.5th. Procurement lobby? 5th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
movax posted:Yeah, sorry my fail. Didn't read closely enough to see that previous poster was talking purely about the Hornet, not Super Hornet. I really don't know why more Air Forces don't do it. I can't see any downsides at all, and if it actually does make it harder to see which way the plane is banking, great.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 21:27
|
|
|
movax posted:D'aww, looks so The US considers it 4.5 or 4.5+ (there's really no difference), but some countries count generations differently. China, for example, considers the F-10 and F-11 5th generation fighters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2010 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
I can't be the only person here who thinks the first time someone beats the SR-71's speed record, they'll take one out of storage, dust it off, hammer down, take the record back, put it back into storage and be all  They built that plane with loving SLIDE RULERS, how many of you fuckers have ever handled one?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2010 03:04
|
|
