PRick escreveu:Santiago escreveu:
Onde vc tirou os que os 8G são o limite?
Há matéria postada aqui em que o SH puxa 8,1G em demostrações com testemunha a bordo (vide abaixo).
Há um artigo com um piloto naval que explica as limitações de 7,5G para o Hornet na USN e que podem ser superadas em caso de necessidade. Para FAs "terrestres" o limite é 9G
Essa materia do Boston Globe foi rebatida ponto por ponto pela USN e pelo gerência do programa. "Could cause" if.....peloamordedeus Prick, isso é um jornal leigo e pode estar interessado (depois foi replicado no jornal do Marines!). O documento oficial da Boeing para um parlamento estrangeiro vale mais do que isso.
Relaxa Prick...segundo Juarez..."deus" está vendo tudo...
Artigo indiano no qual o SH ultrapassa o limite de 7,6G, provando que esse limite não é rígido, como explicado pelo piloto da USN em um outro artigo:
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/media/Aer ... res/Aroor/
[]s
Oras, vá discutir com o fabricante, é ele que está dizendo, Limite de força G´s do projeto é 7,6 g´s. Isso quer dizer, para ter a vida útil estimada pelo fabricante e ficar livre de problema de fadiga, o F-18E não pode puxar g´s acima desse valor de modo contínuo.
Existe uma diferença enorme de fazer algo contínuo, e fazer de modo esporádico, o limite de forças g´s do Rafale é 9, porém, você pode puxar 11 g´s sem problemas, desde que, não seja de modo contínuo, caso contrário a vida útil da célula cai.
Sobre o artigo, eles podem desmentir a vontade, porque no próprio artigo fala sobre isso, quer dizer, mentiras e encobrimentos de fatos sobre problemas no F-18E, isso ocorre desde que essa maravilha foi reprojetada. Por sinal, o Congresso falou de modo claro, o fabricante escondeu e divulgou dados mentirosos sobre o caça, de tal forma, que quando o OPEVAL começou, ele era inaceitável. Ou na forma de eufemismo, continha números abaixo do mínimo aceitável, e pelo menos 100 itens ou falhas foram apontadas, sendo que mais de 20 consideradas graves.
A última agora é a mentira sobre o preço, depois de divulgada a proposta para o Brasil, falar em 54 milhões de dólares é uma mentira deslavada e sem vergonha!
[]´s
Prick,
Vc não está compreendendo a situação (e nunca quis). No momento do desenvolvimento e antes do IOC de um novo vetor é onde eventuais deficiências e falhas precisam ser identificadas e sanadas. O OPEVAL foi concluído em novembro de 1999 (durou 6 meses) e o IOC só foi atingido em setembro de 2001. Ou seja, quase dois anos depois. Vc acha que ficaram de braços cruzados neste período? Muita ingenuidade...lembre-se que os SH iniciais tinham os mesmo sistemas do F/A-18C. Os de hoje são completamente diferentes. E nesses dois anos algumas coisas foram resolvidas.
Embora aprovado com as melhores recomendações no OPEVAL, óbvio que havia pontos a melhorar. Ou vc acha que a configuração do Rafale M/C-1 de 1991 não tinha falhas e ficou congelada até 2000/4 (durante longos 9/13 anos)?
Se o SH tivesse 1/100 dos problemas apontados por vc, ele já teria sido descartado pala FAB há muito tempo. Ou talvez nem considerado. Da mesma forma que ele teria sido descartado pela RAAF, Dinamarca, pela Índia e nem tb considerado pelo Japão.
Quanto a preços, tudo vai depender o que faz parte do pacote. Valor flyaway é algo irreal que serve apenas como referência.
FLIGHT INTERNATIONAL de 2000 (pós-OPEVAL):
US Navy operational evaluation gives
thumbs-up to F/A-18 Super Hornet
GRAHAM WARWICK/WASHINGTON DC
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... f-wal.html
OPERATIONAL evaluation
(Opeval) of the US Navy's
Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
has found the upgraded fighter to
be "
operationally effective and
operationally suitable", and ready
for fleet introduction.
The USN says the Opeval
report concludes that the 25%
larger F/A-18E/F
has greater flexibility,
lethalitv and survivability
than the F/A-18C/D. The service
says the independent operational
testers found "no new deficiencies"
and validated that the E/F meets its
key performance parameters,
including 40% greater interdiction
range than the C/D.
The highest possible
Opeval grade paves the
way for approval of full-rate production
at the end of next month
and signature of a multiyear contract
for 222 E/Fs.
Although the report is classified,
the latest annual study by the US
Department of Defense's Director
of Operational Test & Evaluation
provides some insights. The report
highlights die operational flexibility
provided by the increased fuel
capacity, additional weapon
stations and capability to act as an
aerial-refuelling tanker.
According to the report, the E/F
"
has a slow top speed that encourages
stand-off tactics".
Because of
this, operational testers faulted the
performance of the radar and forward-
looking infrared (FLIR) -
carried over from the C/D - and
endorsed development, already
under way, of an advanced targeting
FLIR and active electronically
scanned array radar.
In air combat, the E/F has better
slow-speed fighting capabilities
than the C/D, says Capt Robert
Rutherford, commanding officer
of VX-9, the squadron which performed
the Opeval. The E/F's
enhanced directional stability and
high angle-of-attack capability
"puts it in a league of its own".
To help carrier crews distinguish
the heavier E/F from die CVD on
approach, a strobe light is added to
die nose gear for daylight identification.
At night, the acquisition
lights blink at a different rate.
Deficiencies still being tackled
include the "hostile" underwing
environment for stores. F/A-18
programme manager Capt James
Godwin says life limits placed on
weapons carried by the E/F now
look "conservative".
-----------------------------------
Tuesday, February 15, 2000 - 12:30 p.m. EST
DoD Special Briefing on "SUPER HORNET" Operation Evaluation Results
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/ ... iptid=1013
(Also participating:
Rear Admiral Robert Besal, Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force; Rear Admiral Thomas Jurkowsky, Chief of Navy Information; Captain James B. Godwin, F/A-18 Program Manager; and Captain Robert Rutherford, Commanding Officer, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine)
(...)
Q: The OT&E's report on this mentioned that one of the problems you had in the last test -- and the way I read it, it didn't seem like it was quite solved in this one -- was in a dogfight, the plane being slower, but it said the AIM-9X Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and a couple of other things will take care of that problem. Is that going to happen before 2002, before this thing is deployed, or do those things come on in block upgrades?
Admiral Nathman: Right now the Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System is scheduled for the first deployment. Like with any new system, there is some risk in that deployment. And the AIM-9X is, I believe, a year or two later for IOC [Initial Operational Capability].
Q: Does that cause you any concern to --
Admiral Nathman: No, it doesn't, because right now we're flying every day in an environment that we understand. We understand the risk. Remember, this is an airplane we grow, so we see this airplane as, when it deploys, very quickly you have a system out there that the pilot can use. You introduce the missile with it and you introduce the other upgrades to it. But we see right now in the very near term the missions -- that this airplane can very capably handle those risks.
I think Captain Rutherford may want to talk about some of the dog-fighting piece of it because I think that might be a larger question here.
So maybe I'll let the captain talk about what he sees in terms of the near-in and the dog-fighting.
Captain Rutherford: Thank you, Admiral.
Well, I think it's fair to take a look at where air combat aviation is going in the 21st century here. And you will take a look at some legacy fighter tactics that largely include and, in fact, I dare say, require that you convert the nose of your aircraft to the tail of your opponent aircraft.
Life in the 21st century is going to be a little bit different. Now you only have to have strong neck muscles and the tactic -- and the development, the technology development that will support these tactics are a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System and a widely capable off-boresite missile employment capability as well. We see that as where this F-18 is ultimately going.
In those scenarios where the aircraft would be in a "knife fight," as we've come to call it, without benefit of the joint helmet- mounted cuing system in either aircraft, the fighter or the opponent, this aircraft will hold its own very nicely. It has extremely capable slow-speed fighting capabilities, much more pronounced than the F-18C. The directional stability of this aircraft and the high angle of attack region puts it in a league all of its own. It features a flight control system -- flight control law that's called beta-dot- feedback, which imparts directional stability to this aircraft, that its predecessor does not have.
So we think that any sort of pot shots that are taken at the aircraft in the 1 v. 1 visual arena are in fact perhaps not as -- don't hold as much water as some would suggest.
(...)
-----------------------------------
- SH, Rafale e Gripen estão disputando duramente uma competição (e outras) em que qualquer um pode ser o ganhador.
- O momento da análise dos dados sobre desempenho de vôo ficou no passado (RFI e ensaios).
- O que está em jogo agora não tem mais nada a ver com o desempenho de vôo de cada plataforma. Os 3 atendem aos requerimentos da FAB, caso contrário não não estariam aqui.
- O desempenho de um sistema de armas é muito mais do que focar de forma superficial (supertrunfo) em alguns poucos parâmetros do envelope de vôo.
[]s