Super Hornet News

[Penguin]

Pois é!
Durante a fase de desenvolvimentos os problemas têm que ser identificados mesmo e sanados. Isso é o normal.

Sempre que o nível de viagem na mayonnaise se eleva demasiadamente, lembro de um certo post fabiano...

Esse termo técnico é muito bom, capacidade de aceleração muito boa! Não estamos aqui debatendo num nível desses, foram colocados os números da aceleração do F-18E, nos testes do fabricante, da US Navy e do OPEVAL. E eles apontam o seguinte, a capacidade de aceleração transonica do F-18E é MEDIOCRE, em comparação com qualquer outro caça de 3 ou 4 geração. Esse é o fato, o resto não está em debate, afinal, os sitemas usados no F-18E são muito bons, porém, estão presentes em todos os outros caças em fabricação hoje no mundo.

Depois mais uma coisa, quem está acostumado a falar bem de F-5M, qualquer outra coisa é uma maravilha! Isso aqui não conta nada, afinal, estamos debatendo o F-18E, o airframe, e suas limitações e erros de projeto, afinal, tem gente que gosta de comprar porcaria, e nem por isso vai deixar de ser porcaria.

[]´s

Não. O OPEVAL foi em 1999/2000.
Os dados do GAO eram ESTIMATIVAS de 1996.

Estimativas é o que se tem do F-35 hoje.

[]s

[PRick]

Esse termo técnico é muito bom, capacidade de aceleração muito boa! Não estamos aqui debatendo num nível desses, foram colocados os números da aceleração do F-18E, nos testes do fabricante, da US Navy e do OPEVAL. E eles apontam o seguinte, a capacidade de aceleração transonica do F-18E é MEDIOCRE, em comparação com qualquer outro caça de 3 ou 4 geração. Esse é o fato, o resto não está em debate, afinal, os sitemas usados no F-18E são muito bons, porém, estão presentes em todos os outros caças em fabricação hoje no mundo.

Depois mais uma coisa, quem está acostumado a falar bem de F-5M, qualquer outra coisa é uma maravilha! Isso aqui não conta nada, afinal, estamos debatendo o F-18E, o airframe, e suas limitações e erros de projeto, afinal, tem gente que gosta de comprar porcaria, e nem por isso vai deixar de ser porcaria.

[]´s

Não. O OPEVAL foi em 1999/2000.
Os dados do GAO eram ESTIMATIVAS de 1996.

Estimativas é o que se tem do F-35 hoje.

[]s

Vc ainda não entendeu, isso piorou, o caça após o OPEVAL tem desempenho dinâmico pior. Ele não melhorou. Os relatos foram obtidos durante os testes. No final, saiu a seguinte declaração, os problemas apresentados foram sanados em 80%, é isso. Imagine se deixarmos algo para ser consertado numa assistência técnica, e o técnico falar, bem consertei 80% dos defeitos e a conta é de algumas centenas de reais! Parece piada foi isso que ocorreu com o SH.

Isso para mim quer dizer, os problemas não foram sanados, ninguém conserta algo em 80%, isso é uma mentira pomposa para remediar o irremediável, que o reprojeto foi um desastre.

[]´s

[Túlio]

Mas a francesada do DB parece estar com um ferro em brasa encostado no traseiro, hein? Pulam pra tudo o que é lado...ehahehaheh

Ademais, curiosa a beligerância tuga em torno do Rafale, até parece que o caça é PORTUGUÊS, POWS!!!

Mas tá certo, a França é logo ali, todos devem conhecer, é mais perto do que o Paraná para um Gaúcho, além de lá haver uma comunidade de mais de um milhão de tugas. O que me intriga é:

E SE O RAFALE FOSSE ESPANHOL?

[soultrain]

RAFAEL FUERA JÀ!!!

[rcolistete]

Mas a francesada do DB parece estar com um ferro em brasa encostado no traseiro, hein? Pulam pra tudo o que é lado...ehahehaheh

Ademais, curiosa a beligerância tuga em torno do Rafale, até parece que o caça é PORTUGUÊS, POWS!!!

Mas tá certo, a França é logo ali, todos devem conhecer, é mais perto do que o Paraná para um Gaúcho, além de lá haver uma comunidade de mais de um milhão de tugas. O que me intriga é:

E SE O RAFALE FOSSE ESPANHOL?

Caramba, não tem nada a ver com Rafale. A história seria a mesma se não existisse Rafale.

Estamos falando de Super Hornet, da história do mesmo, de milhares de páginas de documentação pública. Mesmo o pessoal da US Navy e da Boeing, ao FALAREM BEM do Super Hornet admitem que é um caça mediano na parte de superioridade aérea, compensado em parte pela aviônica e armamento.

Pô, Túlio, teve até entrevista do representante da Boeing, feito pelo DefesaBrasil em que ele fala isso.

Haja falta de memória (seletiva ?) ou falta de leitura/conhecimento.

Abraços,

Roberto

[Túlio]

Caramba, não tem nada a ver com Rafale. A história seria a mesma se não existisse Rafale.

Estamos falando de Super Hornet, da história do mesmo, de milhares de páginas de documentação pública. Mesmo o pessoal da US Navy e da Boeing, ao FALAREM BEM do Super Hornet admitem que é um caça mediano na parte de superioridade aérea, compensado em parte pela aviônica e armamento.

Pô, Túlio, teve até entrevista do representante da Boeing, feito pelo DefesaBrasil em que ele fala isso.

Haja falta de memória (seletiva ?) ou falta de leitura/conhecimento.

Abraços,

Roberto

Qualews, Colistete, nunca escondeste tua preferência, agora essa de ao invés de a favor de um, apenas contra outro? Bá, é peso, hein? Daqui a pouco eu também não sou mais Flankeiro, sou só anti-Rafale...

[rcolistete]

Caramba, não tem nada a ver com Rafale. A história seria a mesma se não existisse Rafale.

Estamos falando de Super Hornet, da história do mesmo, de milhares de páginas de documentação pública. Mesmo o pessoal da US Navy e da Boeing, ao FALAREM BEM do Super Hornet admitem que é um caça mediano na parte de superioridade aérea, compensado em parte pela aviônica e armamento.

Pô, Túlio, teve até entrevista do representante da Boeing, feito pelo DefesaBrasil em que ele fala isso.

Haja falta de memória (seletiva ?) ou falta de leitura/conhecimento.

Abraços,

Roberto

Qualews, Colistete, nunca escondeste tua preferência, agora essa de ao invés de a favor de um, apenas contra outro? Bá, é peso, hein? Daqui a pouco eu também não sou mais Flankeiro, sou só anti-Rafale...

Eu votei no Gripen NG na enquete do FX-2 ! Mudei de opinião depois que o Gripen NG não vendeu nem para os usuários históricos de produtos suecos, muito menos para a própria Suécia. Se o andamento do Gripen NG não tivesse atrasado e vendido para outros países, eu defenderia o Gripen NG por ter ótima relação custo x benefício. Mas hoje, o risco de ser usuário único do Gripen NG é muito grande.

Abraços,

Roberto

[Penguin]

Não. O OPEVAL foi em 1999/2000.
Os dados do GAO eram ESTIMATIVAS de 1996.

Estimativas é o que se tem do F-35 hoje.

[]s

Vc ainda não entendeu, isso piorou, o caça após o OPEVAL tem desempenho dinâmico pior. Ele não melhorou. Os relatos foram obtidos durante os testes. No final, saiu a seguinte declaração, os problemas apresentados foram sanados em 80%, é isso. Imagine se deixarmos algo para ser consertado numa assistência técnica, e o técnico falar, bem consertei 80% dos defeitos e a conta é de algumas centenas de reais! Parece piada foi isso que ocorreu com o SH.

Isso para mim quer dizer, os problemas não foram sanados, ninguém conserta algo em 80%, isso é uma mentira pomposa para remediar o irremediável, que o reprojeto foi um desastre.

[]´s

Não Prick. O caça não piorou. Ele melhorou e muito, como Tulio havia comentado antes. E melhorou mais ainda em termos de sistemas.
Um caça é sempre uma obra em continuo aperfeiçoamentos (hardware e software).
O artigo abaixo (de 2004) descreve o histórico das soluções aplicadas para os problemas encontrados e os resultados obtidos.

[]s

MODIFICATION
Fixes boost Super Hornet agility
Boeing and US Navy say aircraft's transonic wing-drop problems resolved and flight-control software upgraded
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 01843.html

Boeing and the US Navy have
developed what appears to be a
final fix for the F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet's long-running transonic
wing-drop problem and have successfully flight
tested a new flightcontrol software package to
improve spin recovery and provide
more combat manoeuvrability.

The wing-drop problem cropped
up during Phase 1 testing as early
as July 1997 when test pilots experienced
uncommanded bank angle
changes during manoeuvring flight
at transonic speeds. This meant
pilots could not complete guntracking in air-to-air combat,
and was only 80% cured through
adjustments to the flight-control
system and rescheduling of the
leading-edge flaps.

After a variety of changes,
including single and multiple vortex generators,
vortilons and wing fences, the investigations focused
on the wingfold where a discontinuity
between the 11% thickness
ratio of the wing around the hinge
line and the 7% ratio of the wing
caused a flow disruption. Flight
tests later showed that the wingdrop
problem vanished when the
door covering the wingfold was
removed, leading to the adoption
of a "porous" door as a solution.
However, in service the porous
door has caused maintenance problems, with its many small holes
often becoming clogged with dirt
and paint, and the resulting aerodynamic benefits disappearing. The
door also generated problems of its
own, including early, heavier buffet
onset at lower angles of attack (AoA).
Flight tests to follow a more permanent fix began with a second
phase in late 2000 and culminated
with the development of a package
of improvements that have been in
flight test from August 2003 to the
present. Although some testing
continues, the baseline improvements are now being introduced to
the fleet as well as to new production aircraft.
They include a sawtooth leading-edge flap that
reduces the buffet problem, and
the resealing of the wingfold hinge
door. The most significant new
external feature is a 127mm (5in)-
high, full-chord wing fence at butt
line 152, which alters the flow and
prevents the wing drop as well as
reducing buffet onset and intensity.
"That's the biggest selling
point," says the US Navy test team,
which points out the fixes add an
extra 3° AoA and up to 3g additional
margin before buffet onset.
"The result is better for weapons, as
well as the lifetime of the aircraft,
which could see a 10 to 15 times
increase for some parts," it says.
Drag effects are minimal and are
compensated for by improvements
in trailing-edge flow separation.
Upgrades to the flight-control
software have also been introduced
with version 34-1 to cure some
"nagging issues" discovered during
fleet use. These have cropped up on
at least four known occasions
when pilots have inadvertently
entered inverted spins following
tail slides. The fix was considered
"high priority", says Boeing Super
Hornet test pilot Ricardo Traven,
who adds that the goal of the
programme was "better inverted spin
resistance, faster spin recovery and
more manoeuvrability".
The cause was discovered to be a
"turbo trim" device added to speed
up lg recovery from manoeuvring
flight. "In hands-off mode, this
device was essentially pitching the
aircraft into a spin," says Traven.
The turbo trim feature was
removed and the spin recovery
logic altered, as well as several
other changes made. A bonus is
added manoeuvrability at high
AoA and a yawing, 30o/s "pirouette"
turn resembling the "helicopter gun" turn
perfected by the thrust-vectoring X-31.

[PRick]

Vc ainda não entendeu, isso piorou, o caça após o OPEVAL tem desempenho dinâmico pior. Ele não melhorou. Os relatos foram obtidos durante os testes. No final, saiu a seguinte declaração, os problemas apresentados foram sanados em 80%, é isso. Imagine se deixarmos algo para ser consertado numa assistência técnica, e o técnico falar, bem consertei 80% dos defeitos e a conta é de algumas centenas de reais! Parece piada foi isso que ocorreu com o SH.

Isso para mim quer dizer, os problemas não foram sanados, ninguém conserta algo em 80%, isso é uma mentira pomposa para remediar o irremediável, que o reprojeto foi um desastre.

[]´s

Não Prick. O caça não piorou. Ele melhorou e muito, como Tulio havia comentado antes. E melhorou mais ainda em termos de sistemas.
Um caça é sempre uma obra em continuo aperfeiçoamentos (hardware e software).
O artigo abaixo (de 2004) descreve o histórico das soluções aplicadas para os problemas encontrados e os resultados obtidos.

[]s

MODIFICATION
Fixes boost Super Hornet agility
Boeing and US Navy say aircraft's transonic wing-drop problems resolved and flight-control software upgraded
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/ ... 01843.html

Boeing and the US Navy have
developed what appears to be a
final fix for the F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet's long-running transonic
wing-drop problem and have successfully flight
tested a new flightcontrol software package to
improve spin recovery and provide
more combat manoeuvrability.

The wing-drop problem cropped
up during Phase 1 testing as early
as July 1997 when test pilots experienced
uncommanded bank angle
changes during manoeuvring flight
at transonic speeds. This meant
pilots could not complete guntracking in air-to-air combat,
and was only 80% cured through
adjustments to the flight-control
system and rescheduling of the
leading-edge flaps.

After a variety of changes,
including single and multiple vortex generators,
vortilons and wing fences, the investigations focused
on the wingfold where a discontinuity
between the 11% thickness
ratio of the wing around the hinge
line and the 7% ratio of the wing
caused a flow disruption. Flight
tests later showed that the wingdrop
problem vanished when the
door covering the wingfold was
removed, leading to the adoption
of a "porous" door as a solution.
However, in service the porous
door has caused maintenance problems, with its many small holes
often becoming clogged with dirt
and paint, and the resulting aerodynamic benefits disappearing. The
door also generated problems of its
own, including early, heavier buffet
onset at lower angles of attack (AoA).
Flight tests to follow a more permanent fix began with a second
phase in late 2000 and culminated
with the development of a package
of improvements that have been in
flight test from August 2003 to the
present. Although some testing
continues, the baseline improvements are now being introduced to
the fleet as well as to new production aircraft.
They include a sawtooth leading-edge flap that
reduces the buffet problem, and
the resealing of the wingfold hinge
door. The most significant new
external feature is a 127mm (5in)-
high, full-chord wing fence at butt
line 152, which alters the flow and
prevents the wing drop as well as
reducing buffet onset and intensity.
"That's the biggest selling
point," says the US Navy test team,
which points out the fixes add an
extra 3° AoA and up to 3g additional
margin before buffet onset.
"The result is better for weapons, as
well as the lifetime of the aircraft,
which could see a 10 to 15 times
increase for some parts," it says.
Drag effects are minimal and are
compensated for by improvements
in trailing-edge flow separation.
Upgrades to the flight-control
software have also been introduced
with version 34-1 to cure some
"nagging issues" discovered during
fleet use. These have cropped up on
at least four known occasions
when pilots have inadvertently
entered inverted spins following
tail slides. The fix was considered
"high priority", says Boeing Super
Hornet test pilot Ricardo Traven,
who adds that the goal of the
programme was "better inverted spin
resistance, faster spin recovery and
more manoeuvrability".
The cause was discovered to be a
"turbo trim" device added to speed
up lg recovery from manoeuvring
flight. "In hands-off mode, this
device was essentially pitching the
aircraft into a spin," says Traven.
The turbo trim feature was
removed and the spin recovery
logic altered, as well as several
other changes made. A bonus is
added manoeuvrability at high
AoA and a yawing, 30o/s "pirouette"
turn resembling the "helicopter gun" turn
perfected by the thrust-vectoring X-31.

O problema não é de software, o problema é aerodinâmico, não tem solução, ele foi minorado, e só, que ele piorou na aerodinâmica, e aí o maior culpado não foi o wingdrop, mas os cabides vesgos! Quer dizer não é só um problema, é um monte de problemas, você pode melhorar o controle do caça, porém, a tubulência ainda está lá. Para solucionar isso só reprojetando tudo, o que não tem sentido nessa altura, quem é lúcido por lá, deve estar contando os dias do fim dos F-18E como caça, repito como bombardeiro, guerra eletrônica e caça de ataque, o F-18E serve, no resto ele não serve.

[]´s

[soultrain]

Outro problema acrescido é o desgaste prematuro em tudo o que é carregado nos pilones.

[PRick]

Mas a francesada do DB parece estar com um ferro em brasa encostado no traseiro, hein? Pulam pra tudo o que é lado...ehahehaheh

Ademais, curiosa a beligerância tuga em torno do Rafale, até parece que o caça é PORTUGUÊS, POWS!!!

Mas tá certo, a França é logo ali, todos devem conhecer, é mais perto do que o Paraná para um Gaúcho, além de lá haver uma comunidade de mais de um milhão de tugas. O que me intriga é:

E SE O RAFALE FOSSE ESPANHOL?

Tulio,

O primeiro arranca rabo que tive sobre o F-18E, foi no antigo e-groups Poder Naval, em 2001. Já sabedor do que era o F-18E. E você deve saber que foi com um dos editores do Blog Naval hoje.

Deixei bem claro, gosto dos F-18 Legacy, tem suas limitações mas são caças navais muito versáteis. Lá eu mostrei a famosa carta que fala de Super Bug, Super Lento Hornet. Nem sonhava que o F-18E seria proposto para o FX-2.

Veja se eu digo algo parecido do F-15, F-16, F-22, F-4, Gripen, Typhoon, etc.. São todos projetos consistentes, nenhum é perfeito, todos tem seus destaques e suas limitações. Mas F-18E não pode ser misturado com eles, é ofender os deuses dos caças!

[ ]´s

[PRick]

Outro problema acrescido é o desgaste prematuro em tudo o que é carregado nos pilones.

Parece que se deve a turbulência gerada, e creio que a inclinação dos pilones deve ter aumentado em muito esse desgaste.

[ ]´s

[soultrain]

Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Super Hornet Stores Story

The Super Hornet is a strange thing. It was born out of desperation of a post Cold War naval aviation leadership that saw all previous hopes of fighter aircraft recapitalization die hard. The only aircraft design left was one they rejected previously; the concept of an upgraded Hornet design. While sold as an upgrade to a clueless Congress, Super Hornet was anything but that. It was enough of a new design to cause problems in development. One of those problems that had to be solved without breaking out of a set budget was stores carry and separation. Stores are all the things that are hung on a fighter aircraft so it can do a mission. For example, external fuel tanks, bombs, rockets, guided missiles and so on.


The early story of stores carry for the Super Hornet is troubled. The aircraft carries more than the original Hornet. Super Hornet has extra hard points on the wings, not counting the wing tips for Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, six to the old Hornets four. Once this design got into the wind tunnel for stores separation testing, problems appeared. Test results showed faults in the aircrafts design. When released, some stores would bump into each other and the aircraft.



Since the program didn’t have enough money to go back to the drawing board to create a new wing, it was decided to bend the pylons outward as explained by a test engineer:

“From a safe separation perspective the two most significant changes are the toed pylons and the intakes. All SUU-79 and SUU-80 wing pylons are oriented 4 degrees outboard (rotated about the forward pylon attach post) with the outboard most stations being canted outboard 3.5° as well. Also, intakes of the E/F are of a caret design instead of the half-moon shape of the Heritage Hornet aircraft, which alters the flow between the inboard wing station and the aircraft fuselage.”

This is the reason for the stores always having a funny pointed out look when you see a Super Hornet. To accommodate this odd setup, the test engineers had to work to come up with a safe sequencing order for punching off stores.

There are downsides to this fix. They are:

-Increased drag which lowers the performance of the original design. Had the aircraft been able to get away with straight pointing pylons, the fib that admirals tell in front of Congress every year that the jet has 40% more range than a legacy Hornet, may have actually been true.

-Weapons life- Early on, it was discovered that expensive and complex weapons like HARM etc. end up with less airframe life on them compared to if they were hung on a legacy Hornet. The reason for this is that the faults in the Super Hornet design produce more vibration in critical areas that affect stores. It is not known what the Navy did to address this problem.

What other odd things can we see from the way that the Super Hornet carries stores? When the Super Hornet and even the Hornet go to war these days, care has to be given about how and when to hang an external fuel tank on the left wing. Why? History of the Hornet design.

Over the past several years, most operations require the use of cheap precision guided munitions like Paveway and JDAM. This means that for most air-to-ground missions, the jet will always be carrying an electro-optical laser pod on it’s left fuselage.

Because the Super Hornet suffers from the genetics of it’s dad, the placement of an electro-optical pod, known as the ATFLIR on the Super Hornet is in a compromised position. If one hangs an external fuel tank on the left wing, the field of view of the ATFLIR is limited. This is important to consider if a strike leader wants to attack a target that is positioned all down his left side and needs the ATFLIR for observation or laser spotting and designation. Hence the odd looking photos like this that are a common sight around the fleet.


This was never a concern back in the days of designing the legacy Hornet because in the 1970’s, an era where most strike work was done with dumb munitions, the thought of putting what was then an expensive electro-optical pod on the jet was never a prime concern.

This quote from an engineer sums up the history of the Super Hornet design in relation to stores separation.

"General conclusions are that the stores separate from the aircraft and move outboard toward the wind tips, and tails yaw toward the fuselage. Pylon doors gave the best overall improvements in the trajectories and miss distance but were unpopular with the pilots and could not be implemented on the aircraft without serious delays to the flight test program. The pylon toe with the alternate release sequence was a passive system that the Navy and MDA could live with. The major conclusion is that store separation problems should be analyzed as early as possible in the aircraft design, and not analyzed after the design is completed."

Just like other things about the Super Hornet design, compromise sums up the end result nicely. Anything is possible, if you are willing to lower your expectations. With all that though, Super Hornet is now the most inexpensive combat fighter to put on the U.S. Navy carrier deck. It is very safe to fly and compared to what it replaced, has a low cost of ownership. That and more are used to excuse a lot of things like weak airframe performance. The Super Hornet is the only value fighter jet for the fleet until something else shows up that proves that the Navy can pay for all those big grey things that float and still have a fast jet community on the carrier deck.

____

Sources:

-Shawn Grant Denihan,The Benefits and Risks Associated With Use of the Wind Tunnel in Safe Separation Flight Test, The University of Tennessee, 2003.

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999.

-Dale R. Chaddock, F/A/-18E/F Trajectory Improvement Study, 1998.

The Abstract states this:

"The original F/A- 18E/F configuration based on preliminary analysis predicted the existence of a major store separation problem due to a more adverse flowfield than the F/A- 18C/D aircraft. Several reasons contribute to the problem which include a wider fuselage, larger wing area and thicker wing, new inlet design with more inlet spillage, and an additional pylon station on each wing. The wing pylon stations were left at there original locations relative to the aircraft centerline.

After extensive weapons separation testing and trajectory analysis in the AEDC16T transonic wind tunnel, it was projected that the current aircraft configuration had a major separation problem and would not meet the E/F release and jettison specification requirements.Therefore, a major trajectory improvement study was undertaken to improve the release and jettison operational envelopes."


http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/20 ... story.html

[Penguin]

Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Super Hornet Stores Story

The Super Hornet is a strange thing. It was born out of desperation of a post Cold War naval aviation leadership that saw all previous hopes of fighter aircraft recapitalization die hard. The only aircraft design left was one they rejected previously; the concept of an upgraded Hornet design. While sold as an upgrade to a clueless Congress, Super Hornet was anything but that. It was enough of a new design to cause problems in development. One of those problems that had to be solved without breaking out of a set budget was stores carry and separation. Stores are all the things that are hung on a fighter aircraft so it can do a mission. For example, external fuel tanks, bombs, rockets, guided missiles and so on.


The early story of stores carry for the Super Hornet is troubled. The aircraft carries more than the original Hornet. Super Hornet has extra hard points on the wings, not counting the wing tips for Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, six to the old Hornets four. Once this design got into the wind tunnel for stores separation testing, problems appeared. Test results showed faults in the aircrafts design. When released, some stores would bump into each other and the aircraft.



Since the program didn’t have enough money to go back to the drawing board to create a new wing, it was decided to bend the pylons outward as explained by a test engineer:

“From a safe separation perspective the two most significant changes are the toed pylons and the intakes. All SUU-79 and SUU-80 wing pylons are oriented 4 degrees outboard (rotated about the forward pylon attach post) with the outboard most stations being canted outboard 3.5° as well. Also, intakes of the E/F are of a caret design instead of the half-moon shape of the Heritage Hornet aircraft, which alters the flow between the inboard wing station and the aircraft fuselage.”

This is the reason for the stores always having a funny pointed out look when you see a Super Hornet. To accommodate this odd setup, the test engineers had to work to come up with a safe sequencing order for punching off stores.

There are downsides to this fix. They are:

-Increased drag which lowers the performance of the original design. Had the aircraft been able to get away with straight pointing pylons, the fib that admirals tell in front of Congress every year that the jet has 40% more range than a legacy Hornet, may have actually been true.

-Weapons life- Early on, it was discovered that expensive and complex weapons like HARM etc. end up with less airframe life on them compared to if they were hung on a legacy Hornet. The reason for this is that the faults in the Super Hornet design produce more vibration in critical areas that affect stores. It is not known what the Navy did to address this problem.

What other odd things can we see from the way that the Super Hornet carries stores? When the Super Hornet and even the Hornet go to war these days, care has to be given about how and when to hang an external fuel tank on the left wing. Why? History of the Hornet design.

Over the past several years, most operations require the use of cheap precision guided munitions like Paveway and JDAM. This means that for most air-to-ground missions, the jet will always be carrying an electro-optical laser pod on it’s left fuselage.

Because the Super Hornet suffers from the genetics of it’s dad, the placement of an electro-optical pod, known as the ATFLIR on the Super Hornet is in a compromised position. If one hangs an external fuel tank on the left wing, the field of view of the ATFLIR is limited. This is important to consider if a strike leader wants to attack a target that is positioned all down his left side and needs the ATFLIR for observation or laser spotting and designation. Hence the odd looking photos like this that are a common sight around the fleet.


This was never a concern back in the days of designing the legacy Hornet because in the 1970’s, an era where most strike work was done with dumb munitions, the thought of putting what was then an expensive electro-optical pod on the jet was never a prime concern.

This quote from an engineer sums up the history of the Super Hornet design in relation to stores separation.

"General conclusions are that the stores separate from the aircraft and move outboard toward the wind tips, and tails yaw toward the fuselage. Pylon doors gave the best overall improvements in the trajectories and miss distance but were unpopular with the pilots and could not be implemented on the aircraft without serious delays to the flight test program. The pylon toe with the alternate release sequence was a passive system that the Navy and MDA could live with. The major conclusion is that store separation problems should be analyzed as early as possible in the aircraft design, and not analyzed after the design is completed."

Just like other things about the Super Hornet design, compromise sums up the end result nicely. Anything is possible, if you are willing to lower your expectations. With all that though, Super Hornet is now the most inexpensive combat fighter to put on the U.S. Navy carrier deck. It is very safe to fly and compared to what it replaced, has a low cost of ownership. That and more are used to excuse a lot of things like weak airframe performance. The Super Hornet is the only value fighter jet for the fleet until something else shows up that proves that the Navy can pay for all those big grey things that float and still have a fast jet community on the carrier deck.

____

Sources:

-Shawn Grant Denihan,The Benefits and Risks Associated With Use of the Wind Tunnel in Safe Separation Flight Test, The University of Tennessee, 2003.

-Bill Sweetman, Super Hornet gathers speed, but critics keep pressure on, Interavia Business & Technology, March 1, 1999.

-Dale R. Chaddock, F/A/-18E/F Trajectory Improvement Study, 1998.

The Abstract states this:

"The original F/A- 18E/F configuration based on preliminary analysis predicted the existence of a major store separation problem due to a more adverse flowfield than the F/A- 18C/D aircraft. Several reasons contribute to the problem which include a wider fuselage, larger wing area and thicker wing, new inlet design with more inlet spillage, and an additional pylon station on each wing. The wing pylon stations were left at there original locations relative to the aircraft centerline.

After extensive weapons separation testing and trajectory analysis in the AEDC16T transonic wind tunnel, it was projected that the current aircraft configuration had a major separation problem and would not meet the E/F release and jettison specification requirements.Therefore, a major trajectory improvement study was undertaken to improve the release and jettison operational envelopes."


http://worldwidewarpigs.blogspot.com/20 ... story.html

Esse ex-fotografo da USAF, Eric Palmer, é um grande fã do SH, assim como Soultrain.
A diferença é que Eric Palmer tem um blog e Soultrain não tem

[Luís Henrique]

A Boeing devia oferecer o F-15SE.
Ai sim, era só o Obama aceitar o Brasil como membro permanente do CS da ONU.
Que o Lula, a FAB e os entusiastas, TODOS ficariam muito felizes.